Annex A Tables of Burdens

Tables of Burdens Annex A









Annex A Tables of Burdens

Since this document was first published on the website a number of errors have been discovered.

Click on this caption to link to the list of errors and within the list itself to the corrected text.









Page



Chapter 2 Birth, death and still-birth registration 174

2.2 Registration of births 174

2.3 Registration of still-births 177

2.4 Registration of deaths 180





Chapter 3 Marriage 182

3.3.1 Giving notice of intention to marry 182

3.3.45 Issue of superintendent registrar’s authority 186

3.4.1 Venue for marriage 190

3.4.62 Form of marriage ceremony and officials 194

3.4.91 Registration of marriage 197

3.5 Marriages of the housebound and detained 201

3.6 Marriage following the issue of a Registrar General’s Licence 205

3.7 Marriage according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England 210

3.7 Marriage according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church in Wales 217

3.9 Miscellaneous provisions 220





Chapter 5 ‘Through life’ records 222

5.2 ‘Through life’ records 222

5.3 Updating and correcting records 226





Chapter 6 Privacy and access to registration records 228

6.2 and 6.3 Classification and computerisation, central database and records management 228

6.4 Access 230

6.5 Data sharing and data transfer 236

6.6 Historic records 237





Chapter 7 The registers 238

7.3 Existing registers 238





Chapter 8 Overseas and other records 242

8.2 and 8.3 Overseas and miscellaneous records 242





Chapter 9 Statistics 244



Chapter 10 Organisation 246



Chapter 11 Finance and charges 249





173

174







Chapter 2 Birth, death and still-birth registration









Annex A

2.2 Registration of births

Burdens removed or reduced



Legislation Births and Deaths Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any necessary Would the proposal

Registration Act 1953 protection? prevent anyone

exercising a right or

freedom?

S1 Requirement on birth informant to attend the office of a registrar to give information for the registration of a No. The protection offered by the current No. While alternative

birth. Requirement on registrar to keep registers for the purpose of making registrations. birth notification system from the NHS means of registering

would be retained. would be offered, the

freedom to attend a local

register office would be

retained.



S2 Requirement for informant to sign the register in the presence of the registrar. No. Verification of identity of the informant No.

will be done using the Government’s

Authentication Framework.

S4 Requirement for personal attendance of an informant at the office of the registrar and to sign the register in the No. Verification of identity of the informant No.

presence of the registrar. will be done using the Government’s

Authentication Framework.

S6 Requirement on birth informant to make a declaration before a superintendent registrar of the particulars to be No. It would be possible to register but No.

registered where the registration is to take place more than three months but less than twelve months from the without the need to make any additional

date of birth. declaration

S7 Authority of the Registrar General for the registration of a birth after twelve months to be in writing. No. Authority will still be required but may No.

be in electronic format.

S8 Penalty for improper registration of birth between three and twelve months from the date of birth other than as No. This penalty applies to a specific No.

provided. procedure which would be dispensed with.

S9 Requirement for birth informant to make a declaration before a registrar other than the registrar for the area No. It would be possible to give the No.

where the birth occurred for transmission to registrar of area where birth occurred. information to register the birth at any

register office in England or Wales.

S10 (1) (a) Requirement for unmarried parents to attend together before a registrar to enable the father’s details to be No. The inclusion of the father’s details No.

recorded in the birth entry. would still be subject to verification by the

mother.

S10 (1) (b) Requirement for mother to make a declaration and to produce a statutory declaration made by the father to No. There would continue to be a need for No.

enable his details to be recorded where the parents are not married. the father and the mother to confirm the

father’s details.

S10 (1) (c) Requirement for the father to take a declaration and to produce a statutory declaration made by the mother to No. There would continue to be a need for No.









Tables of Burdens

enable the father’s details to be recorded where the parents are not married. the father and the mother to confirm the

father’s details.

Chapter 2 Birth, death and still-birth registration









Tables of Burdens

2.2 Registration of births

Burdens removed or reduced



Legislation Births and Deaths Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any necessary Would the proposal

Registration Act 1953 protection? prevent anyone

exercising a right or

freedom?

S12 Issue by registrar of certificate of registration of birth on request of the informant. No. No. A print of the details

recorded would be

available as well as access

to the record by

authorised users

S13 Restriction on provision for change of child’s forename to be recorded if changed within one year of No. No. New provision for

registration. change of name at any

age would be introduced

S14(2) Requirement for the personal attendance of the parents for the re-registration of the birth of a legitimated No. No.

person to be made.

S25 Provision of registers and forms by the Registrar General. No. No.

S26 (1) Registrar to make and deliver quarterly to the superintendent registrar copies of all entries in birth registers or No. No.

certificate to the effect that no entries have been made.

S26 (2) Requirement for superintendent registrar to verify and certify copies of entries or countersign nil return No. No.

certificate.

S27 Requirement for superintendent registrars to forward, quarterly, certified copies of all entries in birth registers No. No.

to the Registrar General.

S28(1)–(2) Registrars to keep safely all registers in their custody and when not in use keep them in the register box No. No.

provided by the Registrar General. Completed registers to be delivered to the superintendent registrar to be

kept by him with the records of his office.

S28(4) Registrar General to keep all certified copies at the General Register Office. No. No.









Annex A

175

176







Chapter 2 Birth, death and still-birth registration









Annex A

2.2 Registration of births

Proposals introducing burdens



Proposals Would the Would the Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes or

proposal impose proposal remove proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance reduces burdens make it desirable for the RRO

or remove a any necessary anyone from between the to be made?

burden? protection? exercising a right interests of those

or freedom? affected and the

public?

To provide the A new burden No. The current No. The current Yes. There would be benefit to the public of choice of Yes. This proposal is Yes. We consider the proposed system for the

facility for the would be placed on validation checks local service service access. The service would also be available primarily aimed an registration of births to be overall less burdensome

registration of births the Registrar against NHS birth provision would be beyond normal office opening hours, seven days a enhancing the public than the present system. It makes best use of

by use of the General to provide notifications would retained. week. There would also be a reduced burden on the service while information technology and replaces an outdated,

Internet or by and support the be maintained. The current local service provision. reducing the costs to paper based system.

phone. necessary technical identity of the the public purse of

environment with informant currently securing a birth

help facilities and verified by his or registration.

the trained staff to her signature will be

accept telephone replaced using the

registrations. Also Government

there would be a Authentication

new burden on staff Framework.

registering centrally

in regard to the

offence of refusal or

failure to register.









Tables of Burdens

Tables of Burdens

Chapter 2 Birth, death and still-birth registration

2.3 Registration of still-births

Burdens removed or reduced



Legislation Births and Deaths Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any Would the proposal

Registration Act 1953 necessary protection? prevent anyone

exercising a right or

freedom?

S1 Requirement on still- birth informant to attend the office of a registrar to give information for the registration of a No. The protection offered by the current No.

still-birth. legislation would remain in place.

S2 Requirement for informant to sign the register in the presence of the registrar. No. Verification of identity of the No.

informant will be done using the

Government’s Authentication

Framework.



S4 Requirement for personal attendance of an informant at the office of the registrar and to sign the register in the No. Verification of identity of the No.

presence of the registrar. informant will be done using the

Government’s Authentication

Framework.



S6 (4) Limits period during which still-birth may be registered to three months from the date of the still-birth. No. The protection offered by the current No.

legislation would remain in place.

S7 (3) Restricts registration after twelve months on the authority of the Registrar General to births thereby denying this No. Requirements for production of No.

facility in the case of a still-birth. evidence to the Registrar General

contained in subordinate legislation

would be retained.

S9 Requirement for still-birth informant to make a declaration before a registrar other than the registrar for the area No. It would be possible to give the No.

where the still-birth occurred for transmission to registrar of area where still-birth occurred. information to register the still- birth at

any register office in England or Wales.



S10 (1) (a) and Requirement for unmarried parents to attend together before a registrar to enable the father’s details to be Yes. The protection offered by the need No.

S10A (1) (a) recorded in the still-birth entry. for both parents to confirm paternity

would be removed.



S10 (1) (b) and Requirement for mother to make a declaration and to produce a statutory declaration made by the father to Yes. The protection offered by the need No.

S10A (1) (b) enable his details to be recorded where the parents are not married. for both parents to confirm paternity

would be removed.



S10 (1) (c) and Requirement for the father to make a declaration and to produce a statutory declaration made by the mother to Yes. The protection offered by the need No.

S10A (1) (c) enable the father’s details to be recorded where the parents are not married. for both parents to confirm paternity

would be removed.

S11(a) Requirement for production of a signed still-birth certificate. No. The certification would continue but No.

allow for electronic transfer between the

doctor/midwife and registration officer.









Annex A

177

178







Chapter 2 Birth, death and still-birth registration









Annex A

2.3 Registration of still-births

Burdens removed or reduced



Legislation Births and Deaths Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any Would the proposal

Registration Act 1953 necessary protection? prevent anyone

exercising a right or

freedom?

S12 Issue by registrar of certificate of registration of still-birth on request of the informant. No. No. A print of the details

recorded would be

available as well as access

to the record by

authorised users.

S13 Restriction on provision for addition or change of child’s name to births only. No. No. New provision for

addition and change of

name at any age would

be introduced.

S25 Provision of registers and forms by the Registrar General. No. No.



S26 (1) Registrar to make and deliver quarterly to the superintendent registrar copies of all entries in still-birth registers or No. No.

certificate to the effect that no entries have been made.

S26 (2) Requirement for superintendent registrar to verify and certify copies of entries or countersign nil return certificate. No. No.

S27 Requirement for superintendent registrars to forward, quarterly, certified copies of all entries in still-birth registers No. No.

to the Registrar General.

S28(1) &(3) Registrars to keep safely all registers in their custody and when not in use keep them in the register box provided No. No.

by the Registrar General. Registrar to send completed registers to the superintendent registrar for forwarding to

the Registrar General.









Tables of Burdens

Chapter 2 Birth, death and still-birth registration









Tables of Burdens

2.3 Registration of still-births

Proposals introducing burdens



Proposals Would the Would the Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose proposal remove proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a any necessary anyone from between the interests RRO to be made?

burden? protection? exercising a right of those affected and

or freedom? the public?

To provide the A new burden No. The current No. The current Yes. There would be benefit to the public of choice Yes. This proposal is Yes. We consider the proposed system for the

facility for the would be placed on validation checks local service of service access without the need to travel to the primarily aimed at registration of still-births to be overall less

registration of still- the Registrar will be retained. provision would be office of a registrar. The service would also be enhancing the public burdensome than the present system. It makes

births by use of the General to provide The identify of the retained. available well beyond normal office opening hours, service while reducing best use of information technology and replaces

Internet or by and support the informant currently seven days a week. There would also be a reduced the costs to the public an outdated, paper-based system.

phone. necessary technical verified by his or burden on the current local service provision. purse of securing a still-

environment with her signature will be birth registration.

help facilities and replaced using the

the trained staff to Government’s

accept telephone Authentication

registrations. Framework.

To accept a still- There will be an No. This proposal No. The provision Yes. It is estimated that this proposal will effect some Yes. It is in the public Does not remove a burden but strengthens

birth registration additional burden strengthens the to register a still- fifty cases each year but the increased protection to interest that the protection of life which is in the broader public

only on production on the informant, safeguards in respect birth will remain. human life will be proportionate. protection of human life interest.

of a medical the registration of the protection of is maximised.

certificate of cause officer and coroner life.

of still-birth issued in those cases where

by a registered no MCCSB is

medical issued. The burden

practitioner, on the informant of

registered midwife having to obtain a

or on receipt of a MCCSB or await

coroner’s certificate. the outcome of a

coroner’s enquiry

will be offset to

some extent by not

having to make a

statutory

declaration.



Record of disposal This would impose No. No. Yes. This system already operates for deaths ensuring Yes. Yes.

to be returned to a burden on proper disposal takes place.

the registering cremation and

authority. burial authorities

and registration

authorities.









Annex A

179

180







Chapter 2 Birth, death and still-birth registration









Annex A

2.4 Registration of deaths

Burdens removed or reduced



Legislation Births and Deaths Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any Would the proposal

Registration Act 1953 necessary protection? prevent anyone

exercising a right or

freedom?

S15 Requirement on death informant to attend the office of a registrar to give information for the registration of a No. The protection offered by the No.

death. current legislation would remain in

place.



S16 Burden on certain persons not currently qualified to register a death that takes place in a house. No. The protection offered by the No.

current legislation would remain in

place.

S17 Burden on certain persons not currently qualified to register a death that takes place elsewhere than in a house. No. The protection offered by the No.

current legislation would remain in

place.



S21 Authority of the Registrar General for the registration of a death after twelve months to be in writing. No. Authority will continue to be No.

required but may be in electronic

format.



S22(1) & (4) Medical certificate of cause of death to be printed forms signed by the doctor. No. The certificate will continue to be No.

required but may be in electronic

format.

S23(3) Coroner’s certificate to be issued under the hand of the coroner. No. No.



S23A Requirement for death informant to make a declaration before a registrar other than the registrar for the area where No. The evidence of the fact of the No.

the death occurred for transmission to the registrar for the area where the death occurred. death and its cause will continue to be

required.



S25 Provision of registers and forms by the Registrar General. No. No.



S26 (1) Registrar to make and deliver quarterly to the superintendent registrar copies of all entries in death registers or No. No.

certificate to the effect that no entries have been made.



S26 (2) Requirement for superintendent registrar to verify and certify copies of entries or countersign nil return certificate. No. No.

S27 Requirement for superintendent registrars to forward, quarterly, certified copies of all entries in death registers to No. No.

the Registrar General.



S28(1)–(2) Registrars to keep safely all registers in his custody and when not in use keep them in the register box provided by No. No.









Tables of Burdens

the Registrar General. Completed registers to be delivered to the superintendent registrar to be kept by him with

the records of his office.

S28(4) Registrar General to keep all certified copies at the General Register Office. No. No.

S31(2), 31(2) and 32 Provides only for the issue of a certified copy of the death record including cause of death. No. No.



S41 Definition of ‘relative’ for the purpose of registering a death excludes the partner of the deceased. No. No.

Tables of Burdens

Chapter 2 Birth, death and still-birth registration

2.4 Registration of deaths

Proposals introducing burdens



Proposals Would the Would the Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose proposal remove proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a any necessary anyone from between the interests of RRO to be made?

burden? protection? exercising a right those affected and the

or freedom? public?

To provide the A new burden No. The current No. The current Yes. There would be benefit to the public of choice of Yes. This proposal is Yes. We consider the proposed system for the

facility for the would be placed on validation checks local service service access without the need to travel to the office primarily aimed at registration of deaths to be overall less

registration of the Registrar against the medical provision would be of a registrar. The service would also be available well enhancing the public burdensome than the present system. It makes

deaths by use of the General to provide certificate of cause retained. beyond normal office opening hours, seven days a service while reducing best use of information technology and replaces

Internet or by and support the of death (MCCD) week. There would also be a reduced burden on the the costs to the public an out-dated, paper-based system.

phone. necessary technical will be retained. The current local service provision. purse of securing a death

environment with identity of the registration.

help facilities and informant currently

the trained staff to verified by his or her

accept telephone signature will be

registrations. replaced using the

Government’s

Authentication

Framework.









Annex A

181

182







Chapter 3 Marriages









Annex A

3.3.1 Giving notice of intention to marry

Burdens removed or reduced – Giving notice of intention to marry

Legislation Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any necessary Would the proposal prevent anyone exercising a right

protection? or freedom?

Marriage Act 1949, Requirement for notice of marriage to be given to local superintendent No: there would continue to be a requirement for No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S27(1)(a) - (b) registrar. notice of marriage to be given, but to any

registration authority, so that a person’s identity and

legal capacity to marry could be established.

Marriage Act 1949, Requirement on superintendent registrar to retain notice forms and to enter No: there would still be a requirement for notices to Yes: those who use marriage notice books to search for

S27(4) details in marriage notice book. be publicised locally. Notices would also be details of couples who are marrying would no longer be

publicised on the General Register Office website. able to do so. They would however, be able to make

similar searches by other means eg local website or via the

General Register Office website. Those who do not have

access to the internet could request information from the

marriage notice database either locally or centrally.

Marriage Act 1949, Requirement on those marrying in a registered building who require the No: couples would no longer marry in registered No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S27(5) presence of a registrar to inform the superintendent registrar when giving buildings or require the presence of a registrar.

notice. Instead, all marriages would take place in the

presence of a civil or religious celebrant.



Marriage Act 1949, Requirement on superintendent registrars and registrars to attest declaration No: the declaration would still need to be made by No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S28(2) made by person giving notice. person giving notice, but would be attested before

someone acting on behalf of the registration

authority.

Marriage Act 1949, Duty on couple to produce evidence of their name, age, marital status and No: there would still be a duty on couple to provide No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S28A nationality, if required to do so by superintendent registrar or registrar attesting evidence of name, age, marital status and nationality

the notice. if required by the registration authority.

Marriage Act 1949, Requirement on superintendent registrars to display in their office a copy of all No: there would still be a requirement for notices to Yes: those who use the marriage notice board to search for

S31(1) notices they have taken. be publicised locally. Notices would also be details of couples who are marrying would no longer be

publicised on the General Register Office website. able to do so. They would however, be able to make

similar searches by other means eg local website or via the

General Register Office website. Those who do not have

access to the internet could request information from the

marriage notice database either locally or centrally.

Marriage Act 1949, Requirement on those marrying according to the usages of the Society of No: only those who have authority from the Society No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S47(1) - (3) Friends to satisfy the superintendent registrar that they have permission to do of Friends to marry according to those rites and

so. ceremonies would be able to do so. This would be

regulated by the Society of Friends.

Immigration and Requirement on registrars and superintendent registrars to report to the Home No: there would continue to be a requirement for No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

Asylum Act 1999, S24 Office any marriage they suspect is being contracted in order to evade suspicions to be reported to the Home Office, but









Tables of Burdens

immigration control. this duty would fall to the registration authority

rather than the superintendent registrar or registrar.

Chapter 3 Marriages









Tables of Burdens

3.3.1 Giving notice of intention to marry

Proposals introducing burdens – Giving notice of intention to marry

Proposals Would the Would the Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes or

proposal impose proposal remove proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance reduces burdens make it desirable for the RRO

or remove a any necessary anyone from between the to be made?

burden? protection? exercising a right interests of those

or freedom? affected and the

public?

Couples would give Requirement on No: transfer of No: there are no Yes: with the removal of the statutory posts of Yes: the proposal Yes: the proposal to allow couples to give notice to

notice to any registration responsibility from rights or freedoms superintendent registrar and registrar, registration would introduce any registration authority would be overall less

registration authorities to accept registration officers at issue. authorities would have greater freedom and flexibility greater flexibility in burdensome than the current system. It allows for

authority. notices of marriage, to registration about how they deliver registration services. how notice of greater use of information technology and provides

attest them, enter authority would not marriage is given, individuals with greater choice about where to

them onto the remove any but at the same time access registration services.

central database and necessary retain many of the

publicise details protections. current safeguards

locally. Registration that help to deter

authorities would fraudulent or

still be required to bigamous marriages.

comply with

requirements of

Marriage Act 1949

to ensure couples

were free to marry

each other.



Couples would Duty on couple to No: transfer of No: there are no Yes: couples already provide evidence to Yes: there is no Yes: the additional burden on registration

produce provide evidence if responsibility from rights or freedoms superintendent registrar or registrar. Transferring additional burden authorities of having to inspect documents is

documentary required to do so by registration officers at issue. requirement to registration authority would create no on the couple in negligible when compared with the present system

evidence to registration to registration additional burden on them. Benefit in terms of having to produce of marriage. Overall, the proposals would create a

registration authority. authority would not maintaining the integrity of the system of marriage in documentary more flexible and responsive system that better

authority. remove any England and Wales is proportionate to the additional evidence to the meets the needs of the public.

necessary burden on registration authorities in having to inspect registration

protections. documentary evidence. authority, but it is in

Registration the interests of the

authority would still general public that

be required to checks on a person’s

comply with capacity to marry

requirements of continue to be made

Marriage Act 1949 prior to a marriage

to ensure couples ceremony.

were free to marry

each other.









Annex A

183

184







Chapter 3 Marriages









Annex A

3.3.1 Giving notice of intention to marry

Proposals introducing burdens - Giving notice of intention to marry

Proposals Would the Would the Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes or

proposal impose proposal remove proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance reduces burdens make it desirable for the RRO

or remove a any necessary anyone from between the to be made?

burden? protection? exercising a right interests of those

or freedom? affected and the

public?



Additional Those giving notice No: if anything, the No: those wishing Yes: the burden would be negligible, given the Yes: there is evidence Yes: we consider the proposal for giving notice of

documentary would be required proposal introduces to marry would still introduction of automatic address/postcoding of immigration and marriage to be overall less burdensome than the

evidence would be to produce evidence additional be able to do so, software. other abuse in present system. It would make best use of

produced when of their usual protections to providing they had relation to marriage, information technology and provide individuals

notice of marriage address. safeguard the image a usual residence in where those with greater choice about where to access

is given. and perception of England and Wales marrying have given registration services.

marriage. for 7 days. The a false or non-

absence of evidence existent address.

of their usual The proposal aims

address would not to reduce this abuse

prevent anyone which should benefit

from marrying, the public purse.

providing they had

a satisfactory

explanation as to

the lack of evidence.

Name of religious Requirement on No: the proposal is No: there are no Yes: the burden on the couple would be negligible, Yes: the burden Yes: the celebrant-based system for marriage would

celebrant who is to couple to provide intended to ensure rights or freedoms given that they would have already arranged the date would protect the provide a more flexible and responsive system than

conduct the name of religious that the interests of at issue. of the marriage with the celebrant. interests of the the present one, and would be overall less

marriage ceremony celebrant who is to the couple are couple as well as burdensome.

would be recorded perform the protected, and that maintaining the

on the notice form. marriage ceremony only those who have integrity of the

when giving notice. been legally system of marriage.

appointed to do so

would be able to

perform marriage

ceremonies.

All notices of The Registrar No: if anything, the No: notices would Yes: the burden would be negligible given the Yes: there is evidence Yes: we consider the proposal to be desirable. It

marriage would be General would be proposal introduces continue to be introduction of a central database of marriage notices. of immigration and would introduce additional protections and

publicised centrally. required to publicise additional publicised locally. other abuse in partially replace the present system for the publicity

all notices centrally, protection. For the Those who do not relation to marriage. of marriages which is outdated and burdensome for

via the General first time, there will have access to the Suspected bigamies superintendent registrars.

Register Office be a central list of internet could and sham marriages

website. all notices of request information should be easier to

marriage, linked to form the marriage detect before they









Tables of Burdens

a central database of notice database take place.

life events. either locally or

Suspected bigamies centrally.

and sham marriages

should be easier to

detect before they

take place.

Chapter 3 Marriages









Tables of Burdens

3.3.1 Giving notice of intention to marry

Proposals introducing burdens – Giving notice of intention to marry

Proposals Would the Would the Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes or

proposal impose proposal remove proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance reduces burdens make it desirable for the RRO

or remove a any necessary anyone from between the to be made?

burden? protection? exercising a right interests of those

or freedom? affected and the

public?



There would Duty on registration No: the level of No: there are no Yes: the benefit in terms of maintaining the integrity Yes: the burden Yes: the celebrant-based system for marriage would

continue to be authority to report protection offered rights or freedoms of the system of marriage in England and Wales would serve to provide a more flexible and responsive system than

reports to the to the Home Office by this provision at issue. would be proportionate to the additional burden on maintain the the present one, and would be overall less

Home Office any marriage they would be registration authorities in having to report suspicious integrity of the burdensome. The additional burden on

regarding suspicious suspect is being maintained. marriages to the Home Office. system of marriage registration authorities in having to report

marriages. contracted in order in England and suspicious marriages to the Home Office would

to evade Wales. not outweigh the overall benefits to be gained by

immigration introducing such a system.

control.









Annex A

185

186







Chapter 3 Marriages









Annex A

3.3.45 Issue of superintendent registrar’s authority

Burdens removed or reduced – Issue of superintendent registrar’s authority

Legislation Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any necessary Would the proposal prevent anyone exercising a right

protection? or freedom?



Marriage Act 1949, Requirement for caveat to be entered with superintendent registrar who has No: there would still be provision for caveats to be No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S29(1) entered the notice of marriage in the marriage notice book. entered and procedures in place to ensure that a

marriage did not take place until the grounds for

the caveat had been investigated.

Marriage Act 1949, S30 Requirement on individuals to write ‘forbidden’ in marriage notice book where No: there would still be provision for consent to be No: individuals would still be free to withdraw their

notice was entered. withdrawn prior to the issue of the Schedule. consent at any time prior to the issue of the Schedule.

Marriage Act 1949, Requirement on superintendent registrars to issue authority for marriage where No: requirement for issue of authority would No: couples would still be able to obtain authority for

S31(2) they are satisfied there is no lawful impediment to the marriage. transfer to registration authority. Would still need marriage to proceed, providing there was no lawful

to be satisfied that there is no lawful impediment to impediment.

marriage before authority can be issued.

Marriage Act 1949, Requirement on the couple to apply for and to collect superintendent registrar’s No: although there would be more flexibility about No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S31(2) authority. how the couple could obtain their authority, they

would still need to present a valid authority to the

celebrant before the marriage ceremony could

proceed.

Marriage Act 1949, Requirement on superintendent registrars to issue printed instructions for the No: requirement would transfer to registration No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S31(5) solemnisation of the marriage to person who gave notice. authority so interests of person who gave notice will

be safeguarded.

Marriage Act 1949, Provision for Registrar General to make regulations conferring responsibility No: responsibility would transfer to registration No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S31(5E) for reducing the 15 day waiting period onto superintendent registrars. authority so necessary protection would remain.

Marriage Act 1949, S40 Requirement on Registrar General to supply superintendent registrar with No: registration authorities would continue to issue No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

sufficient number of forms of authority. authority, but this would be printed direct from the

system. It would no longer be necessary for the

Registrar General to supply forms for that purpose.

Marriage Act 1949, Offence for any person to solemnise a marriage following the issue of a No: instead, it would be an offence for any person No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S75(2)(d) superintendent registrar’s certificate before the 15 day waiting period has passed to solemnise a marriage following the issue of a

[except where the Registrar General has given authority for them to do so]. Schedule before the 15 day waiting period has

passed [except where the Registrar General has given

authority for them to do so].

Marriage Act 1949, Offence for any person to solemnise a marriage after the superintendent No: instead, it would be an offence for any person No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S75(2)(e) registrar’s certificate has expired. to solemnise a marriage after the Schedule has

expired.

Marriage Act 1949, Offence for a superintendent registrar to issue an authority before the 15 day No: instead, it would be an offence for any person No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S75(3)(a) waiting period had passed [except where the Registrar General has given to issue a Schedule before the 15 day waiting period









Tables of Burdens

authority for them to do so]. has passed [except where the Registrar General has

given authority for them to do so].

Marriage Act 1949, Offence for a superintendent registrar to issue an authority more than twelve No: instead, it would be an offence for any person No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S75(3)(b) months after notice of marriage was given. to issue a Schedule more than 12 months after

notice of marriage was given.

Marriage Act 1949, Offence for a superintendent registrar to issue an authority that has been No: instead, it would be an offence for any person No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S75(3)(c) ‘forbidden’. to issue a Schedule that had been ‘forbidden’.

Chapter 3 Marriages









Tables of Burdens

3.3.45 Issue of superintendent registrar’s authority

Proposals introducing burdens – Issue of superintendent registrar’s authority

Proposals Would the Would the Would the proposal Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose proposal remove prevent anyone benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a any necessary from exercising a between the interests of RRO to be made?

burden? protection? right or freedom? those affected and the

public?

A caveat could be Requirement on No: people would No: people would Yes: the burden should be negligible given the small Yes: would ensure that Yes: the system for the entering of caveats would

entered with any registration still be able to enter still be able to enter number of caveats that are entered each year. those who wish to raise be overall less burdensome as they could be

registration authorities to caveats, and a caveats where they an objection are able to entered with any registration authority rather

authority. investigate caveats. Schedule that was thought there was do so, as well as than the one where notice of marriage was

subject to a caveat an impediment to a protecting the integrity given.

could not be issued proposed marriage. of the system of

until that caveat marriage.

had been

thoroughly

investigated.



Schedule would be If Registrar General No: responsibility No: there are no Yes: the burden should be negligible spread across Yes: couples will still be Yes: the burden is negligible and should not

issued to couple by exercises his would transfer to rights or freedoms at every registration authority. Would only deal with able to marry more detract from the overall desirability of the Order

registration regulation-making registration issue. certain applications - the remainder would still be quickly in exceptional and the benefits it will bring.

authority once both power, registration authority so dealt with by the Registrar General. circumstances.

notices have been authorities would, necessary

given. in some protection would

circumstances, have remain. Would be

responsibility for required to comply

dealing with with any

applications to regulations made

reduce the 15 day by Registrar

waiting period. General.

Schedule would be Requirement on No: registration No: couples would Yes: transferring the responsibility for the issue of the Yes: would ensure that a Yes: the system for the issue of the Schedule

issued to couple by registration authority would still be able to marry, Schedule from the superintendent registrar to the couple’s capacity would be overall less burdensome for those

registration authorities to issue carry out same once a document registration authority would allow for greater continues to be checked wishing to marry. Also, registration authorities

authority once both Marriage Schedule checks as had been issued flexibility in how such services are delivered. The before an authority for would have greater flexibility about how such

notices have been once satisfied that superintendent confirming there benefits to the public outweigh the effect of the the marriage to proceed services should be delivered. The proposal is

given. both notices have registrar in order to was no impediment burden on the registration authority. is issued, and at the same desirable.

been given, there is be satisfied that to the proposed time improve the service

no lawful there was no marriage. to those wishing to

impediment to the impediment to the marry.

marriage and the proposed marriage.

issue of the

Schedule has not

been ‘forbidden’.

Schedule would be Requirement on No: maintains No: there are no Yes: transferring the responsibility for the completion Yes: proposal aims to Yes: the system for the completion of the

issued to couple by registration current levels of rights or freedoms at of the Schedule from the superintendent registrar to ensure that those who Schedule would be overall less burdensome due

registration authority to protection. issue. the registration authority would allow for greater gave notice are the same to the greater use of information technology.

authority once both complete Schedule Requirement flexibility in how such services are delivered. The as those who go through The proposal is desirable.









Annex A

notices have been with details from currently on benefits to the public outweigh the effect of the marriage ceremony. As

given. the two notices. superintendent burden on the registration authority. such, maintains integrity

registrar rather than of marriage system.

registration

authority.

187

188







Chapter 3 Marriages









Annex A

3.3.45 Issue of superintendent registrar’s authority

Proposals introducing burdens – Issue of superintendent registrar’s authority

Proposals Would the Would the Would the proposal Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose proposal remove prevent anyone benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a any necessary from exercising a between the interests of RRO to be made?

burden? protection? right or freedom? those affected and the

public?



Schedule would be Requirement on No: maintains No: there are no Yes: aims to ensure that the marriage is conducted in Yes: the proposal serves Yes: the overall proposals make it desirable that

accompanied by registration current levels of rights or freedoms at accordance with the law, and that the couple are to safeguard the interests the Order should be made.

printed instructions authority to issue protection. There issue. aware of the legal requirements. The benefits of the couple as well as

regarding the printed instructions would still be a outweigh the burden in this respect. the system of marriage in

solemnisation of the regarding the requirement for general.

marriage. solemnisation of printed instructions

the marriage when to be issued but by

issuing the the registration

Schedule. authority instead of

by the

superintendent

registrar.

It should be an Burden on any No: maintains No: there are no Yes: should act as a deterrent to ensure integrity of Yes: society has an Yes: the overall proposals make it desirable that

offence for any person who acts current levels of rights or freedoms at marriage system is maintained. interest in whether the Order should be made.

person to issue a accordingly. protection. issue. marriages are conducted

Schedule before the Offence relates to in accordance with the

15 day waiting issue of Schedule law, as do the couple

period has passed rather than who are contracting the

[except where the superintendent marriage.

Registrar General registrar’s

has given authority certificate.

for them to do so].

It should be an Burden on any No: maintains No: there are no Yes: should act as a deterrent to ensure integrity of Yes: society has an Yes: the overall proposals make it desirable that

offence for any person who acts current levels of rights or freedoms at marriage system is maintained. interest in whether the Order should be made.

person to issue a accordingly. protection. issue. marriages are conducted

Schedule more than Offence relates to in accordance with the

12 months after issue of Schedule law as do the couple who

notice of marriage rather than are contracting the

was given. superintendent marriage.

registrar’s

certificate.

It should be an Burden on any No: maintains No: there are no Yes: should act as a deterrent to ensure integrity of Yes: society has an Yes: the overall proposals make it desirable that

offence for any person who acts current levels of rights or freedoms at marriage system is maintained. interest in whether the Order should be made.

person to issue a accordingly. protection. issue. marriages are conducted

Schedule that has Offence relates to in accordance with the









Tables of Burdens

been ‘forbidden’. issue of Schedule law as do the couple who

rather than are contracting the

superintendent marriage.

registrar’s

certificate.

Chapter 3 Marriages









Tables of Burdens

3.3.45 Issue of superintendent registrar’s authority

Proposals introducing burdens – Issue of superintendent registrar’s authority

Proposals Would the Would the Would the proposal Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose proposal remove prevent anyone benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a any necessary from exercising a between the interests of RRO to be made?

burden? protection? right or freedom? those affected and the

public?

It should be an Burden on any No: maintains No: there are no Yes: should act as a deterrent to ensure integrity of Yes: society has an Yes: the overall proposals make it desirable that

offence for anyone person who acts current levels of rights or freedoms at marriage system is maintained. interest in whether the Order should be made.

to solemnise a accordingly. protection. issue. marriages are conducted

marriage before the Offence relates to in accordance with the

15 day waiting issue of Schedule law as do the couple who

period has passed rather than are contracting the

[except where they superintendent marriage.

have the authority registrar’s

of the Registrar certificate.

General to do so] or

once the Schedule

has expired.









Annex A

189

190







Chapter 3 Marriages









Annex A

3.4.1 Venue for marriage

Burdens removed or reduced – Venue for marriage

Legislation Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any necessary Would the proposal prevent anyone exercising a right

protection? or freedom?

Marriage Act 1949, S4 Requirement for marriages to take place between the hours of 8am and 6pm. No: there would continue to be a requirement for No: the time of a marriage would be a matter for

both the bride and groom to be present at the negotiation between the couple and the celebrant.

marriage ceremony, which must take place in the

presence of two witnesses and the celebrant,

regardless of the time at which the marriage takes

place.

Marriage Act 1949, Requirement for marriages to take place in a registered building, register office No: there would continue to be a requirement for No: the venue for the marriage would be a matter for

S26(1)(a) – (bb) or approved premise. both the bride and groom to be present at the negotiation between the couple and the celebrant. The

marriage ceremony, which must take place in the celebrant would not be required to attend any venue that

presence of two witnesses and the celebrant, he or she does not consider to be suitable. Marriages

regardless of the venue at which the marriage takes would still be possible in registered buildings and

place. approved premises although they would no longer need to

be registered or approved for the purpose.

Marriage Act 1949, Requirement for a superintendent registrar to only issue a certificate for a No: there would continue to be a requirement for No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S35(1) – (2B) marriage in a registered building outside his district unless there is no building both the bride and groom to be present at the

of that denomination in the district or the building is the usual place of worship marriage ceremony, which must take place in the

of the bride or groom. presence of two witnesses and the celebrant,

regardless of the area where the marriage is taking

place, and whether or not this is in the area where

either the bride or groom has their usual residence.

Marriage Act 1949, Requirement on superintendent registrar to record on notice where couple are No: couples would be able to marry anywhere, No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S35(5) marrying in their usual place of worship. providing the ceremony takes place in the presence

of a duly appointed celebrant.

Marriage Act 1949, S41 Requirement on trustees of certified places of religious worship to apply to have No: celebrants would be regulated rather than the No: those who currently apply for registration for

their buildings registered for the purposes of marriage and to comply with the places where marriages could take place. marriages would no longer need to do so, but could still

various conditions imposed by statute. hold marriage ceremonies in those venues.

Marriage Act 1949, Requirement for a superintendent registrar to enter the date of registration for No: marriages would be able to take place anywhere No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S41(1) - (5) marriages in a book supplied by the Registrar General. but there would still be a requirement for both the

bride and groom to be present at the marriage

ceremony, which must take place in the presence of

two witnesses and the celebrant.

Marriage Act 1949, Requirement for Registrar General to inform the superintendent registrar when No: marriages would be able to take place anywhere No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S42(1) - (2) he cancels the registration of a building for the purposes of marriage. but there would still be a requirement for both the

bride and groom to be present at the marriage

ceremony, which must take place in the presence of

two witnesses and the celebrant.









Tables of Burdens

Marriage Act 1949, Requirement for either bride or groom to be qualified to be married in a naval, No: celebrants would be able to place restrictions on No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S68(2) - (6) military or airforce chapel. who can marry in naval, military or airforce chapels.

Chapter 3 Marriages









Tables of Burdens

3.4.1 Venue for marriage

Burdens removed or reduced – Venue for marriage

Legislation Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any necessary Would the proposal prevent anyone exercising a right

protection? or freedom?

Marriage Act 1949, S69 Requirement for bishop of diocese, on application of the Admiralty or Secretary No: there would continue to be a requirement for No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

of State, to licence a military chapel for Church of England marriages and to the bride and groom to be present at the marriage

inform the Registrar General where any such licence is revoked. ceremony, which must take place in the presence of

two or more witnesses and the celebrant. There

would also be a requirement for the ceremony to be

a public event.

Marriage Act 1949, S70 Requirement for the Registrar General, on the application of the Admiralty or No: there would continue to be a requirement for No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

Secretary of State, to register a military chapel for other than Church of England the bride and groom to be present at the marriage

marriages; to cancel the registration and to advertise the cancellation in the ceremony, which must take place in the presence of

London Gazette; to inform the superintendent registrar of the cancellation. two or more witnesses and the celebrant. There

would also be a requirement for the ceremony to be

a public event.

Marriage Act 1949, S73 Requirement on the diocesan registrar to send to the Registrar General every No: there would continue to be a requirement for No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

year a list of all chapels in the diocese; requirement on the Registrar General to the bride and groom to be present at the marriage

print a list of all chapels and registered buildings every year and to send a copy ceremony, which must take place in the presence of

of this list to every registrar and superintendent registrar. two or more witnesses and the celebrant. There will

also be a requirement for the ceremony to be a

public event.

Marriage Act 1949, Offence for anyone to solemnise a marriage outside the hours of 8am and 6pm. No: marriages could take place at any time. Such No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S75(1) restrictions are no longer necessary in today’s society.

Marriage Act 1949, Offence for anyone to solemnise a marriage in any place other than that named No: instead it would be an offence for anyone to No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S75(2)(a)(ii) in the notice and in the superintendent registrar’s authority. solemnise a marriage at any place other than that

named in the notice and the Schedule.

Marriage Act 1949, Offence for anyone to solemnise a marriage on premises that have not been No: approved premises would no longer exist. No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S75(2)(aa) approved. Celebrants would be regulated rather than the places

where marriages could take place.

Sharing of Church Requirement on trustees of church buildings which are subject to a sharing No: marriages would be able to take place anywhere, No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

Buildings Act 1969 agreement to apply for certification for worship and registration for marriage. without the need for them to be registered for

marriages, but there would still be a requirement for

both the bride and groom to be present at the

marriage ceremony, which must take place in the

presence of two witnesses and the celebrant.

Places of Worship Requirement on trustees of places of religious worship to certify such places to No: marriages would be able to take place anywhere No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue. The interests

Registration Act 1855 Registrar General and to notify disuse; requirement on Registrar General to without the need for venues to be certified for of those who currently benefit from certification for

print and distribute list of places of religious worship. worship and then registered for marriage. worship will be safeguarded.









Annex A

191

192







Chapter 3 Marriages









Annex A

3.4.1 Venue for marriage

Proposals introducing burdens – Venue for marriage

Proposals Would the Would the Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose or proposal remove proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

remove a burden? any necessary anyone from between the interests RRO to be made?

protection? exercising a right of those affected and

or freedom? the public?

Regulate people Local authorities No: only those No: although Yes: regulating the people who perform marriage Yes: regulating the Yes: we consider the proposal to be overall less

who can perform and religious legally authorised to buildings will no ceremonies rather than the places where marriages people who can perform burdensome than the present system of

marriage ceremony denominations perform marriage longer need to be can take place provides greater choice and flexibility marriage ceremonies registration and approval of buildings for the

rather than places would be required ceremonies would approved or to the public, whilst maintaining a dignified and instead of the places purposes of marriage.

where marriages to appoint be able to do so. registered for the ordered system of marriage. responds to the wishes

can take place. celebrants. purposes of of the general public

marriage, who would like more

ceremonies can still choice over where

take place there. marriages can take place.

It also ensures that there

is a legally recognised

system of marriage that

everyone must adhere

to.

Regulate people Local authorities No: only those No: there are no Yes: whilst initially the burden will be significant, Yes: regulating the Yes: we consider the proposal to be overall less

who can perform and religious legally authorised to rights or freedoms over time local authorities and religious people who can perform burdensome than the present system of

marriage ceremony denominations perform marriage at issue. denominations will only need to notify any changes marriage ceremonies registration and approval of buildings for the

rather than places would be required ceremonies would to the Registrar General. instead of the places purposes of marriage.

where marriages to notify details of be able to do so. responds to the wishes

can take place. celebrants to of the general public

Registrar General, who would like more

together with any choice over where

changes to those marriages can take place.

details. It also ensures that there

is a legally recognised

system of marriage that

everyone must adhere

to.



Regulate people Registrar General No: only those No: there are no Yes: regulating the people who perform marriage Yes: regulating the Yes: we consider the proposal to be overall less

who can perform would be required legally authorised to rights or freedoms ceremonies rather than the places where marriages people who can perform burdensome than the present system of

marriage ceremony to maintain a list of perform marriage at issue. can take place provides greater choice and flexibility marriage ceremonies registration and approval of buildings for the

rather than places celebrants and to ceremonies would to the public, whilst maintaining a dignified and instead of the places purposes of marriage.

where marriages make it publicly be able to do so. ordered system of marriage. This burden replaces responds to the wishes

can take place. available. that currently on the Registrar General of certifying of the general public

for worship and registering buildings for marriage, who would like more









Tables of Burdens

and of maintaining and publishing a list of those choice over where

buildings. marriages can take place.

It also ensures that there

is a legally recognised

system of marriage that

everyone must adhere

to.

Chapter 3 Marriages









Tables of Burdens

3.4.1 Venue for marriage

Proposals introducing burdens – Venue for marriage

Proposals Would the Would the Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose or proposal remove proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

remove a burden? any necessary anyone from between the interests RRO to be made?

protection? exercising a right of those affected and

or freedom? the public?



Provide civil Registration No: it would ensure No: everyone Yes: it would ensure that people were not Yes: marriage would be Yes: we consider the proposal for a celebrant -

marriage at a authorities would be that marriage is wishing to marry disadvantaged by the new arrangements and that available to everyone at based system for marriage to be overall less

nationally set, required to adhere available to would still be able marriage was available to everyone at a reasonable a reasonable cost but burdensome than the present system of

statutory fee. to national everyone, at a to do so, at a cost. there would be also be a registration and approval of buildings for the

standards in relation reasonable cost. reasonable cost. greater choice of venue purposes of marriage. The requirement to

to civil marriage. for those who wanted to provide civil marriage, at a nationally set

benefit from the statutory fee, would ensure that marriage is still

relaxation of the current available to everyone.

arrangements.









Annex A

193

194







Chapter 3 Marriages









Annex A

3.4.62 Form of marriage ceremony and officials

Burdens removed or reduced – Form of marriage ceremony and officials

Legislation Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any necessary Would the proposal prevent anyone exercising a right

protection? or freedom?

Marriage Act 1949, Requirement on trustees of registered buildings to appoint authorised persons No: instead, religious denominations would be No: marriages could still take place in religious buildings.

S43(1) and to notify their details to the Registrar General. required to appoint celebrants and to notify their Would no longer be necessary to appoint authorised

details to the Registrar General. All marriages persons.

would have to take place in the presence of a duly

appointed celebrant.



Marriage Act 1949, S44 Requirement for prescribed words of declaration and contract to be used at all No: there would continue to be a requirement for Yes: however, in many instances, it is likely that the

marriage ceremonies [apart from those according to the rites and ceremonies of the couple to make a declaration, in the presence of current form of marriage ceremony used by those not

the Jews and Quakers]. each other, two witnesses and the celebrant that they subject to this requirement would meet the criteria

accept each other as husband and wife, and for the imposed by this provision.

celebrant to make a declaration that the couple are

now husband and wife.

Marriage Act 1949, Requirement on registrar or authorised person to attend all marriages in a No: instead, all marriages would take place in the No: marriages could still take place in religious buildings.

S44(2) registered building. presence of a duly appointed celebrant. Would no longer be necessary to appoint authorised

persons.

Marriage Act 1949, Requirement for all civil marriages to take place in the presence of a registrar No: instead, all marriages would take place in the No: it would still be possible for couples to have a civil

S45(1) and S46B(1)(b) and a superintendent registrar. presence of a duly appointed celebrant. marriage ceremony, but in the presence of a civil celebrant

rather than a registrar and a superintendent registrar.



Marriage Act 1949, S52 Requirement on the Registrar General to supply every registrar in Wales, or in No: marriages would still take place using the Welsh No: marriages could still take place using the Welsh

every place where the Welsh language is commonly used, a translation into language with the agreement of the couple and the language.

Welsh of the words of declaration and contract that must be spoken at a celebrant who would need to agree the form of

marriage ceremony. words to be used.

Marriage Act 1949, Requirement on Admiralty or Secretary of State to appoint authorised persons No: instead, all marriages would take place in the No: marriages could still take place in naval, military and

S69(4) and S70(1)(b) to attend marriages that take place in naval, military and airforce chapels. presence of a duly appointed celebrant. airforce chapels. Would no longer be necessary to

appoint authorised persons.

Marriage Act 1949, Offence for any person to solemnise a marriage in a register office, approved No: instead, it would be an offence for a marriage to No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S75(2)(b), (c) and (cc) premise or registered building in the absence of a registrar [the latter not being a take place in the absence of a duly appointed

marriage at which an authorised person was present]. celebrant.

Marriage Act 1949, Offence for a superintendent registrar to solemnise a marriage knowing it to be No: instead, it would be an offence for a celebrant No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S75(3)(d) void. to solemnise a marriage knowing it to be void.









Tables of Burdens

Chapter 3 Marriages









Tables of Burdens

3.4.62 Form of marriage ceremony and officials

Proposals introducing burdens – Form of marriage ceremony and officials

Proposals Would the Would the Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose proposal remove proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a any necessary anyone from between the interests RRO to be made?

burden? protection? exercising a right of those affected and

or freedom? the public?

All marriages would A new burden No: maintains Yes: however, in Yes: need to ensure there is clarity about when Yes: maintains clarity Yes: the overall proposals of a celebrant-based

include a would be placed on current level of many instances, it is marriage ceremony has been concluded. New about when marriage model for marriage, and the flexibility such a

declaration by the the couple and the protections. There likely that the burden, which is negligible, achieves this and also ceremony has been system would bring, makes it desirable that the

couple that they celebrants to say the would continue to current form of puts everyone wishing to marry on a ‘level playing concluded but at the Order should be made.

accept each other as relevant be a requirement for marriage ceremony field’ in this respect. same time introduces

husband and wife, declarations. the couple to make used by those not some flexibility for

and a declaration a declaration, in the subject to the those who wish to

by the celebrant presence of each current requirement personalise or adapt

that the couple are other, two witnesses would meet the their marriage

husband and wife. and the celebrant criteria imposed by ceremony.

that they accept this provision.

each other as

husband and wife,

and for the

celebrant to make a

declaration that the

couple are now

husband and wife.

A civil or religious Requirement for No: maintains No: there are no Yes: aims to ensure that marriage is conducted in Yes: the proposal serves Yes: the overall proposals of a celebrant-based

celebrant would civil or religious current level of rights or freedoms accordance with the law. Benefits outweigh the to safeguard the model for marriage, and the flexibility such a

attend all marriages. celebrant to attend protection whereby at issue. burden in this respect. interests of the couple system would bring, makes it desirable that the

all marriages. all marriages must as well as the system of Order should be made.

take place in the marriage in general.

presence of a

registrar or

authorised person,

and in the case of a

civil marriage a

superintendent

registrar.









Annex A

195

196







Chapter 3 Marriages









Annex A

3.4.62 Form of marriage ceremony and officials

Proposals introducing burdens – Form of marriage ceremony and officials

Proposals Would the Would the Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose proposal remove proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a any necessary anyone from between the interests RRO to be made?

burden? protection? exercising a right of those affected and

or freedom? the public?



It should be an Burden on any No: maintains No: there are no Yes: should act as a deterrent to ensure integrity of Yes: society has an Yes: the overall proposals make it desirable that

offence for any person who acts current level of rights or freedoms marriage system is maintained. interest in whether the Order should be made.

person to solemnise accordingly. protection. Offence at issue. marriages are

a marriage in the relates to absence of conducted in

absence of a duly celebrant rather accordance with the law

appointed than absence of as do the couple who

celebrant. registrar. are contracting the

marriage.

It should be an Burden on any No: maintains No: there are no Yes: should act as a deterrent to ensure integrity of Yes: society has an Yes: the overall proposals make it desirable that

offence for a celebrant who acts current level of rights or freedoms marriage system is maintained. interest in whether the Order should be made.

celebrant to accordingly. protection. Offence at issue. marriages are

solemnise a relates to celebrant conducted in

marriage knowing rather than accordance with the law

it to be void. superintendent as do the couple who

registrar. are contracting the

marriage.









Tables of Burdens

Chapter 3 Marriages









Tables of Burdens

3.4.91 Registration of marriage

Burdens removed or reduced – Registration of marriage

Legislation Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any necessary Would the proposal prevent anyone exercising a right

protection? or freedom?

Marriage Act 1949, Requirement on various individuals to register marriages. No: there would continue to be a requirement for all No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue

S53(b) – (g) marriages to be registered and penalties for any

failure or refusal to do so.

Marriage Act 1949, Requirement on Registrar General to supply marriage registers of a certain No: there would continue to be a requirement for all No: although there would no longer be statutory marriage

S54(1) and S57(1) standard and quarterly copy forms. marriages to be registered but they would be entered registers, denominations could continue to maintain a

directly onto the central database and not recorded non-statutory register of all marriages that take place in

in marriage registers. The database would hold the their buildings.

legal record of the marriage.

Marriage Act 1949, Requirement for marriages to be registered in duplicate marriage registers. No: there would continue to be a requirement for all No: although there would no longer be statutory marriage

S55(1) marriages to be registered but they would be entered registers, denominations could continue to maintain a

directly onto the central database and not recorded non-statutory register of all marriages that take place in

in marriage registers. The database would hold the their buildings.

legal record of the marriage.

Marriage Act 1949, Requirement for the couple, the witnesses and the person required to register No: instead, the couple, the witnesses and the No: although there would no longer be statutory marriage

S55(2) the marriage to all sign the marriage entry immediately after the marriage celebrant would all be required to sign the marriage registers, denominations could continue to maintain a

ceremony has taken place. schedule. non-statutory register of all marriages that take place in

their buildings.

Marriage Act 1949, S56 Provision for those who are required to register marriages to verify with the No: celebrants would be given a similar provision No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

couple prior to the marriage ceremony the information to be recorded in the regarding the information to be recorded in the

marriage register. marriage schedule.

Marriage Act 1949, S57 Requirement on those who must register marriages to send copies of register No: information would already be held on the No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

entries or form confirming that no registrations have been made to central database so the absence of quarterly copies

superintendent registrar. would have no impact.

Marriage Act 1949, Requirement on superintendent registrar to make a payment for every entry No: information would already be held on the No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S57(4) received. central database so the absence of quarterly copies

would have no impact.

Marriage Act 1949, Requirement on superintendent registrar to submit copies of register entries to No: information would already be held on the No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S58(1) Registrar General. central database so the absence of quarterly copies

would have no impact.

Marriage Act 1949, S59 Requirement on those who must register marriages to keep registers safe. No: registration would already be held securely on No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

the central database.

Marriage Act 1949, Offence for anyone required to register a marriage to fail or refuse to do so, to No: responsibility for the registration of marriages No: there are there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S76(1) lose or damage their register books or to fail to send copies of their entries to would lie with the registration authority. It would be

their local superintendent registrar. an offence for any person to refuse or fail to register a

marriage.









Annex A

197

198







Chapter 3 Marriages









Annex A

3.4.91 Registration of marriage

Burdens removed or reduced – Registration of marriage

Legislation Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any necessary Would the proposal prevent anyone exercising a right

protection? or freedom?

Marriage Act 1949, Offence for a registrar to register a marriage knowing it to be void. No: responsibility for the registration of marriages No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S76(2) would lie with the registration authority. It would be

an offence for any person to register a marriage

knowing it to be void.

Marriage Act 1949, S77 Offence for any authorised person to fail to comply with the provisions of the No: instead, it would be an offence for a celebrant to No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

1949 Act and associated regulations. fail to comply with the provisions of the 1949 Act

and any associated secondary legislation.









Tables of Burdens

Chapter 3 Marriages









Tables of Burdens

3.4.91 Registration of marriage

Proposals introducing burdens – Registration of marriage

Proposals Would the Would the Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose or proposal remove proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

remove a burden? any necessary anyone from between the interests RRO to be made?

protection? exercising a right of those affected and

or freedom? the public?

Use the marriage Duty on couple to No: the proposal No: there are no Yes: the inconvenience to the couple would in Yes: the proposed system Yes: the proposed system for the registration of

schedule as the return schedule to aims to ensure that rights or freedoms practical terms, be negligible. The benefit would be a would reduce the costs marriages would be overall less burdensome than

registration registration the marriage at issue. much improved, more efficient system, with more to the public purse the present system. It would make best use of

document instead authority that issued schedule is returned timely and consistent collection of information. significantly. information technology and replace an out-

of marriage it. to the registration dated, paper-based system.

registers. authority so that the

marriage can be

registered. Duty

placed on couple as

they affected the

most if marriage

not registered.



Use the marriage Requirement on No: the proposal No: there are no Yes: the registration authority would be easily able to Yes: the proposal would Yes: the proposed system for the registration of

schedule as the registration aims to ensure that rights or freedoms identify, through the use of the central database, reduce the costs to the marriages would be overall less burdensome than

registration authorities to all marriages are at issue. those schedules that had not been returned. It is public purse the present system. It would make best use of

document instead identify missing registered. essential that all marriages are registered. significantly whilst at information technology and replace an out-

of marriage schedules and to the same time, ensure dated, paper-based system.

registers. ascertain their that all marriages were

whereabouts. registered.

Remove registers Requirement on No: the schedule No: there are no Yes: registration authorities would no longer need to Yes: the proposed system Yes: the proposed system for the registration of

and enter marriages registration system would still rights or freedoms deal with the collection of quarterly copies. Instead would reduce the costs marriages would be overall less burdensome than

direct onto central authorities to require the at issue. they would administer a much more efficient system to the public purse the present system. It would make best use of

database. register all registration of all for the registration of marriages, that makes best use significantly. information technology and replace an out-

marriages. marriages, and legal of modern technology. dated, paper-based system.

and administrative

procedures would

be in place to

ensure compliance.

Use the marriage Requirement on No: this would No: although there Yes: use of the schedule instead of registers allows for Yes: the proposed system Yes: the proposed system for the registration of

schedule as the couple, witnesses replace the current would no longer be a much improved, more efficient system for the would reduce the costs marriages would be overall less burdensome than

registration and the celebrant to signing of the statutory marriage registration of marriages, that makes best use of to the public purse the present system. It would make best use of

document instead sign the schedule. marriage register. registers, modern technology. significantly. information technology and replace an out-

of marriage denominations dated, paper-based system.

registers. could continue to

maintain a non-

statutory register of

all marriages that

take place in their









Annex A

buildings.

199

200







Chapter 3 Marriages









Annex A

3.4.91 Registration of marriage

Proposals introducing burdens – Registration of marriage

Proposals Would the Would the Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose or proposal remove proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

remove a burden? any necessary anyone from between the interests RRO to be made?

protection? exercising a right of those affected and

or freedom? the public?

Celebrant should Enabling provision No: this would No: there are no Yes: should ensure that the quality of the information Yes: it is of general Yes: the proposed system for the registration of

be able to verify that applies to replace the current rights or freedoms should not suffer. Information would already be interest for the marriages would be overall less burdensome than

with the couple the celebrant who is to provision that at issue. shown on the schedule and would just need to be information to be as the present system. It would make best use of

information to be solemnise the applies to those who verified with the couple. accurate as possible at information technology and replace an out-

recorded in the marriage. are required to the time of the dated, paper-based system.

marriage schedule. register marriages. marriage. The

Ensures that the inconvenience to those

quality of the wishing to marry is

information should negligible.

not suffer.

It should be an Burden on any No: maintains No: there are no Yes: should act as a deterrent to ensure integrity of Yes: society has an Yes: the overall proposals make it desirable that

offence for any person who acts current level of rights or freedoms marriage system is maintained. interest in whether the Order should be made.

person to fail or accordingly. protection. Offence at issue. marriages are registered

refuse to register a currently relates to as do the couple who are

marriage. those who are contracting the

required to register marriage.

marriages.

It should be an Burden on any No: maintains No: there are no Yes: should act as a deterrent to ensure integrity of Yes: society has an Yes: the overall proposals make it desirable that

offence for any person who acts current level of rights or freedoms marriage system is maintained. interest in whether the Order should be made.

person to register a accordingly. protection. Offence at issue. marriages are registered

marriage knowing currently relates to as do the couple who are

it to be void. those who are contracting the

required to register marriage.

marriages.

It should be an Burden on the No: maintains No: there are no Yes: should act as a deterrent to ensure integrity of Yes: society has an Yes: the overall proposals make it desirable that

offence for the celebrant who current level of rights or freedoms marriage system is maintained. interest in whether the Order should be made.

celebrant to fail to performs the protection. at issue. marriages are registered

sign the marriage marriage ceremony. in accordance with the

schedule or to law as do the couple

comply with the who are contracting the

provisions of the marriage.

1949 Act or any

associated

regulations.









Tables of Burdens

Chapter 3 Marriages









Tables of Burdens

3.5 Marriages of the housebound and detained

Burdens removed or reduced – Marriages of the housebound and detained

Legislation Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any necessary Would the proposal prevent anyone exercising a right

protection? or freedom?

Marriage Act 1949, Requirement on couple to provide superintendent registrar with relevant No: there would continue to be a requirement for No: couples would still be able to marry at their place of

S27A statements. statements to be produced in order to establish that residence where they need to do so.

marriage is one that can legally take place at the

residence of a housebound or detained person.

Statements would be produced to registration

authority rather than superintendent registrar.



Marriage Act 1949, Requirement on superintendent registrar to receive relevant statements from the No: there would continue to be a requirement for No: couples would still be able to marry at their place of

S27A couple, and to enter the notice in the marriage notice book, once he or she has notice of marriage to be given, and for statements to residence where they need to do so.

done so, together with reference to the relevant statements. be produced, but preliminaries would be dealt with

by registration officer rather than superintendent

registrar.



Marriage Act 1949, Provision for superintendent registrar to collect a fee for attendance at the No: statutory fee would be retained, payable to No: couples would still be able to marry at their place of

S27A(7) residence of a housebound or detained person in order to attest the notice. registration authority. Safeguards the interests of residence where they need to do so, at a reasonable cost.

those who have no choice but to marry at their place

of residence.

Marriage Act 1949, Requirement for all civil marriages at the residence of a housebound or detained No: procedures would be put in place to ensure that No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S45A person to be solemnised in the presence of a registrar and a superintendent all marriages take place in the presence of a celebrant

registrar, and for fees to be paid. instead, who would ensure that the correct

procedures are followed.

Marriage Act 1949, S53 Requirement for all marriages at the residence of a housebound or detained No: there would be procedures put in place to No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

person to be registered by a registrar [apart from those according to the rites and ensure that all marriages continue to be registered.

ceremonies of the Jews, Quakers, Church of England and Church in Wales].

Marriage Act 1949, S55 Requirement on clergyman to register marriages at the residence of a No: there would be procedures put in place to No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

housebound or detained person according to the rites and ceremonies of the ensure that all marriages continue to be registered.

Church of England or Church in Wales in registers belonging to local parish

church and to keep registers safe.

Marriage Act 1949, Offence for anyone to solemnise a marriage at the residence of a housebound or No: instead, it would be an offence for anyone to No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S75(2)(bb) detained person in the absence of a registrar [unless it is a marriage according to solemnise a marriage in the absence of a duly

the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England or the Church in Wales]. appointed celebrant.

Marriage Act 1949, Offence for anyone to solemnise a marriage after the superintendent registrar’s No: instead, it would be an offence for any person No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S75(2)(e) certificate has expired. to solemnise a marriage after the Schedule has

expired.

Marriage Act 1949, Offence for a superintendent registrar to issue his authority more than three No: instead, it would be an offence for any person No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

S75(3)(b) months after the notice was given. to issue a Schedule more than three months after the

notice of marriage was given.









Annex A

201

202







Chapter 3 Marriages









Annex A

3.5 Marriages of the housebound and detained

Proposals introducing burdens – Marriages of the housebound and detained

Proposals Would the Would the Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose proposal remove proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a any necessary anyone from between the interests of RRO to be made?

burden? protection? exercising a right those affected and the

or freedom? public?



Statements to be Require the couple No: transfer of No: there are no Yes: couples already provide documents to Yes: there is no Yes: the additional burden on registration

produced to to produce relevant responsibility from rights or freedoms superintendent registrar. Transferring requirement to additional burden on the authorities of having to inspect statements is

registration statements to the registration officers at issue. registration authority would create no additional couple in having to negligible when compared with the present

authority. registration to registration burden on them. Benefit in terms of maintaining produce statements to system of marriage. Overall, the proposals

authority. authority would not the integrity of the system of marriage in England the registration would create a more flexible and responsive

remove any and Wales is proportionate to the additional burden authority, but it is in the system that better meets the needs of the public.

necessary on registration authorities in having to inspect interests of the general

protections. Couple statements. public that the interests

would still be of those who need to

required to comply marry at home are

with requirements safeguarded.

of Marriage Act

1949.

Couples would give Require registration No: transfer of No: there are no Yes: with the removal of the statutory posts of Yes: the proposal would Yes: the proposal to allow couples to give notice

notice to any authority to accept responsibility from rights or freedoms superintendent registrar and registrar, registration introduce greater to any registration authority would be overall

registration notices, enter registration officers at issue. authorities would have greater freedom and flexibility flexibility in how notice less burdensome than the current system. It

authority. details onto to registration about how they deliver registration services. of marriage is given, but allows for greater use of information technology

database and refer authority would not at the same time retain and provides individuals with greater choice

to statements. remove any many of the current about where to access registration services.

necessary safeguards that help to

protections. deter fraudulent or

Registration bigamous marriages.

authorities would

still be required to

comply with

requirements of

Marriage Act 1949

to ensure couples

were free to marry

each other.









Tables of Burdens

Chapter 3 Marriages









Tables of Burdens

3.5 Marriages of the housebound and detained

Proposals introducing burdens – Marriages of the housebound and detained

Proposals Would the Would the Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose proposal remove proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a any necessary anyone from between the interests of RRO to be made?

burden? protection? exercising a right those affected and the

or freedom? public?



Provision for the Registration No: it would ensure No: everyone Yes: it would ensure that people were not Yes: marriage would be Yes: we consider the proposal for a celebrant-

registration authorities would that marriage is needing to marry at disadvantaged by the new arrangements and that available to everyone at a based system for marriage to be overall less

authority to collect be required to available to their place of marriage was available to everyone who needed to reasonable cost but the burdensome than the present system of

a fee for the attend at residence everyone, at a residence would marry at their place of residence at a reasonable cost. interests of those who registration and approval of buildings for the

attendance at the of housebound or reasonable cost. still be able to do needed to marry at home purposes of marriage. The requirement to attest

residence of a detained person in so, at a reasonable would be safeguarded. notices at home for a nationally set statutory fee

housebound or order to attest cost. would ensure that marriage is still available to

detained person to notice for a everyone.

attest the notice. nationally set,

statutory fee.





Provision for Registration No: it would ensure No: everyone Yes: it would ensure that people were not Yes: marriage would be Yes: we consider the proposal for a celebrant-

registration authorities would that marriage is needing to marry at disadvantaged by the new arrangements and that available to everyone at a based system for marriage to be overall less

authority to collect be required to available to their place of marriage was available to everyone who needed to reasonable cost but the burdensome than the present system of

statutory fee for provide a civil everyone, at a residence would marry at their place of residence at a reasonable cost. interests of those who registration and approval of buildings for the

attendance of civil celebrant for a reasonable cost. still be able to do needed to marry at home purposes of marriage. The requirement to

celebrant at marriage at the so, at a reasonable would be safeguarded. provide a civil celebrant, for a nationally set

marriage ceremony. residence of a cost. statutory fee would ensure that marriage is still

housebound or available to everyone.

detained person for

a nationally set,

statutory fee.

Require civil and A new burden No: currently, a No: there are no Yes: couples will no longer have to arrange for both a Yes: the system will be Yes: we consider the proposed system for the

religious celebrants would be placed on registrar attends all rights or freedoms Minister and a registrar to attend their marriage administratively simpler registration of marriages at the residence of a

to attend marriages religious celebrants marriages at the at issue. ceremony at a mutually convenient time. Will only for the couple, whilst housebound or detained person to be overall less

at the residence of a to attend marriages residence of a need to arrange the attendance of the religious still containing sufficient burdensome than the present system.

housebound or at the residence of a housebound or celebrant. safeguards to ensure that

detained person. housebound or detained person to all marriages are

detained person and ensure they are registered.

to sign the Schedule registered but in

as confirmation that future, there will be

the marriage no reason why a

ceremony has taken religious celebrant

place. could not take on

this role.









Annex A

203

204







Chapter 3 Marriages









Annex A

3.5 Marriages of the housebound and detained

Proposals introducing burdens – Marriages of the housebound and detained

Proposals Would the Would the Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose proposal remove proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a any necessary anyone from between the interests of RRO to be made?

burden? protection? exercising a right those affected and the

or freedom? public?

Remove registers Requirement on No: the schedule No: there are no Yes: registration authorities would no longer need to Yes: the proposed system Yes: the proposed system for the registration of

and enter marriages registration system would still rights or freedoms deal with the collection of quarterly copies. Instead, would reduce the costs marriages would be overall less burdensome

direct onto central authorities to require the at issue. they would administer a much more efficient system to the public purse than the present system. It would make best use

database. register all registration of all for the registration of marriages, that makes best use significantly. of information technology and replace an out-

marriages that take marriages, and legal of modern technology. dated, paper-based system.

place at the procedures would

residence of a be in place to ensure

housebound or compliance.

detained person.

Should be an Burden on any No: maintains No: there are no Yes: should act as a deterrent to ensure the integrity Yes: society has an Yes: the overall proposals make it desirable that

offence for any person who acts current levels of rights or freedoms of the marriage system is maintained. interest in whether the Order should be made.

person to issue a accordingly. protection. Offence at issue. marriages are conducted

Schedule more than relates to issue of in accordance with the

three months after Schedule rather law as do the couple who

notice has been than issue of are contracting the

given. superintendent marriage.

registrar’s certificate.

Should be an Burden on any No: maintains No: there are no Yes: should act as a deterrent to ensure the integrity Yes: society has an Yes: the overall proposals make it desirable that

offence for any person who acts current levels of rights or freedoms of the marriage system is maintained. interest in whether the Order should be made.

person to solemnise accordingly. protection. Offence at issue. marriages are conducted

a marriage more relates to issue of in accordance with the

than three months Schedule rather law as do the couple who

after the notice has than issue of are contracting the

been given. superintendent marriage.

registrar’s certificate.

Should be an Burden on any No: maintains No: there are no Yes: should act as a deterrent to ensure the integrity Yes: society has an Yes: the overall proposals make it desirable that

offence for anyone person who acts current levels of rights or freedoms of the marriage system is maintained. interest in whether the Order should be made.

to solemnise a accordingly. protection. Offence at issue. marriages are conducted

marriage in the relates to absence of in accordance with the

absence of a duly celebrant rather law as do the couple who

appointed than absence of are contracting the

celebrant. registrar. marriage.









Tables of Burdens

Chapter 3 Marriages









Tables of Burdens

3.6 Marriage following the issue of a Registrar General’s Licence

Burdens removed or reduced – Marriages following the issue of a Registrar General’s Licence

Legislation Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any necessary Would the proposal prevent anyone exercising a right

protection? or freedom?



Marriage (Registrar Requirement for notice to be entered in marriage notice book. No: notice would be entered onto central database No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue. Those who

General’s Licence) Act instead. use marriage notice books for commercial reasons to

1970, S2 and S4 search for details of couples who are marrying have no

interest in those marrying following the issue of a

Registrar General’s Licence.

Marriage (Registrar Requirement for notice to be given to superintendent registrar, together with No: there would still be a requirement for notice of No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

General’s Licence) Act relevant evidence. marriage to be given, but to any registration

1970, S3 authority, so that a person’s identity and legal

capacity to marry could be established.

Marriage (Registrar Requirement for couple to use words of declaration and contract as set out in No: there would continue to be a requirement for Yes: those marrying according to the rites and ceremonies

General’s Licence) Act Marriage Act 1949 [apart from those marrying according to the rites and the couple to make a declaration, in the presence of of the Jews and Quakers would be subject to these

1970, S10 ceremonies of the Jews and Quakers]. each other, two witnesses and the celebrant that they provisions. However, in many instances it is likely that

accept each other as husband and wife, and for the the current form of marriage ceremony used by the Jews

celebrant to make a declaration that the couple are and the Society of Friends would meet the criteria

now husband and wife. imposed by this requirement.

Marriage (Registrar Requirement for all marriages to be solemnized in the presence of a registrar No: instead, all marriages would take place in the No: it would still be possible for couples to have a civil or

General’s Licence) Act (and a superintendent registrar if the marriage is to be a civil ceremony). presence of a duly appointed celebrant. religious marriage ceremony, but in the presence of a civil

1970, S10 or religious celebrant rather than a registrar (and a

superintendent registrar).



Marriage (Registrar Requirement for superintendent registrar to issue a document confirming No: in the absence of the Registrar General’s No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

General’s Licence) Act licence has been issued. Licence, the registration authority would continue

1970, S14 to issue a document to the celebrant confirming that

the Licence has been issued.



Marriage (Registrar Requirement for all marriages to be registered by a registrar. No: there would continue to be a requirement for all No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

General’s Licence) Act marriages to be registered.

1970, S15

Marriage (Registrar Offence for a superintendent registrar to solemnise a marriage knowing it to be No: instead it would be an offence for a celebrant to No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

General’s Licence) Act void or for a registrar to register a marriage in such circumstances. solemnise a marriage knowing it to be void;

1970, S16 responsibility for the registration of marriages would

lie with the registration authority. It would be an

offence for any person to register a marriage

knowing it to be void.

Marriage (Registrar Requirement on Registrar General to pay registration officers for their No: registration authorities would continue to No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

General’s Licence) Act involvement in a marriage following the issue of a Registrar General’s Licence. provide the facilities for marriage where one of the

1970, S17 couple is seriously ill and not expected to recover.

Fees would be recovered from the couple or waived

in cases of hardship.









Annex A

205

206







Chapter 3 Marriages









Annex A

3.6 Marriage following the issue of a Registrar General’s Licence

Proposals introducing burdens – Marriages following the issue of a Registrar General’s Licence

Proposals Would the Would the Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose proposal remove proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a any necessary anyone from between the interests RRO to be made?

burden? protection? exercising a right of those affected and

or freedom? the public?

Couples would give Requirement on No: transfer of No: there are no Yes: with the removal of statutory posts of Yes: the proposal would Yes: the proposal allows for greater use of

notice to registration responsibility from rights or freedoms superintendent registrar and registrar, registration introduce benefits to information technology. Use of central database

registration authorities to accept registration officers at issue. authorities would have greater freedom and flexibility couple but at the same provides benefits for the couple eg details can be

authority where notices of marriage, to registration about how they deliver registration services. time retain many of the verified via information held on central database.

marriage is to take attest them, enter authority would not current safeguards that

place. them onto the remove any help to deter fraudulent

central database. necessary or bigamous marriages.

protections.

Registration

authorities would

still be required to

comply with

requirements of

Marriage (Registrar

General’s Licence)

Act 1970 to ensure

couples were free to

marry each other.

Couples would Duty on couple to No: transfer of No: there are no Yes: couples already produce evidence to Yes: there is no Yes: the additional burden on registration

produce relevant produce evidence to responsibility from rights or freedoms superintendent registrar. Transferring requirement to additional burden on authorities of having to inspect documents is

evidence to registration registration officers at issue. registration authority would create no additional the couple in having to negligible. Overall, the proposals would create a

registration authority. to registration burden on them. Benefit in terms of maintaining produce medical more flexible and responsive system that better

authority. authority would not the integrity of the system of marriage in England evidence to the meets the needs of the public.

remove any and Wales is proportionate to the additional burden registration authority,

necessary on registration authorities having to inspect medical but it is essential that

protections. evidence. checks are made to

Registration ensure the couple meet

authority would still the criteria for marriage

be required to in these circumstances.

comply with

requirements of

Marriage (Registrar

General’s Licence)

Act 1970 to ensure

couple met criteria

for marriage in









Tables of Burdens

these circumstances.

Chapter 3 Marriages









Tables of Burdens

3.6 Marriage following the issue of a Registrar General’s Licence

Proposals introducing burdens – Marriages following the issue of a Registrar General’s Licence

Proposals Would the Would the Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose proposal remove proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a any necessary anyone from between the interests RRO to be made?

burden? protection? exercising a right of those affected and

or freedom? the public?



Couple would pay Couple would pay No: requirements of No: there are no Yes: additional burden on couple but would remove Yes: fees for marriage Yes: the additional burden is negligible when

registration for giving notice 1970 Act would still rights or freedoms anomalies which currently exist surrounding fees. following the issue of a compared with the overall benefits that the

authority for notice and marriage need to be met. at issue. Couple Registrar General’s proposals would bring.

of marriage and ceremony at a fee would still be able Licence would be

ceremony instead of equivalent to that to marry quickly at equivalent to those for

Registrar General. for other marriages. a reasonable cost. other marriages.









Registration Registration No: registration No: there are no Yes: burden currently lies with superintendent Yes: the proposal would Yes: the overall proposals make it desirable that

authority to accept authority to inform authorities would right or freedoms at registrar. Transfer of responsibility to registration maintain current the Order should be made.

notice of marriage Registrar General of have to comply with issue. authority could lead to improvements in delivery of safeguards but bring

and enter onto the receipt of notice requirements of registration services. benefits for those

central database. and to issue a 1970 Act. involved.

document to

celebrant

confirming that

Licence has been

issued.

Remove registers Requirement on No: there would No: there are no Yes: registration authorities would no longer need to Yes: the proposed system Yes: the proposed system for the registration of

and enter marriages registration still be a rights or freedoms deal with the collection of quarterly copies. Instead, would reduce the costs marriages would be overall less burdensome than

direct onto central authorities to requirement for all at issue. they would administer a much more efficient system involved in the the present system. It would make best use of

database. register all marriage. marriages to be for the registration of marriages, that makes best use registration of marriages. modern technology and replace an out-dated,

registered, and legal of modern technology. paper-based system.

and administrative

procedures would

be in place to ensure

compliance.









Annex A

207

208







Chapter 3 Marriages









Annex A

3.6 Marriage following the issue of a Registrar General’s Licence

Proposals introducing burdens – Marriages following the issue of a Registrar General’s Licence

Proposals Would the Would the Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose proposal remove proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a any necessary anyone from between the interests RRO to be made?

burden? protection? exercising a right of those affected and

or freedom? the public?

All marriages to A new burden No: maintains Yes: those marrying Yes: need to ensure there is clarity about when Yes: maintains clarity Yes: the overall proposals of a celebrant-based

include a would be placed on current levels of according to the marriage ceremony has been concluded. New about when marriage model of marriage, and the flexibility such a

declaration by the the couple and the protections. There rites and burden which is negligible, achieves this and also ceremony has been system would bring, makes it desirable that the

couple that they celebrants to say the would continue to ceremonies of the puts everyone wishing to marry on a ‘level playing concluded but at the Order should be made.

accept each other as relevant be a requirement for Jews and the field’ in this respect. same time introduces

husband and wife, declarations. the couple to make Society of Friends some flexibility for those

and a declaration by a declaration, in the would be subject to who wish to personalise

the celebrant that presence of each these provisions. or adapt their marriage

the couple are other, two witnesses However, in many ceremony.

husband and wife. and the celebrant instances, it is likely

that they accept that the current

each other as form of marriage

husband and wife, ceremony used by

and for the the Jews and the

celebrant to make a Society of Friends

declaration that the would meet the

couple are now criteria imposed by

husband and wife. this requirement.



Use the Licence as Requirement on No: this would No: although there Yes: allows for a much improved, more efficient Yes: the proposed system Yes: the proposed system for the registration of

the registration couple, witnesses replace the current would no longer be system for the registration of marriages, that makes would reduce the costs marriages would be overall less burdensome than

document instead of and the celebrant to signing of the statutory marriage best use of modern technology. involved in the the present system. It would make best use of

marriage registers. sign the Licence. marriage register. registers, registration of marriages. information technology and replace an out-

denominations dated, paper-based system.

could continue to

maintain a non-

statutory register.

It should be an Burden on any No: maintains No: there are no Yes: should act as a deterrent to ensure integrity of Yes: society has an Yes: the overall proposals make it desirable that

offence for a celebrant who acts current level of rights or freedoms marriage system is maintained. interest in whether the Order should be made.

celebrant to accordingly. protection. Offence at issue. marriages are conducted

solemnise a relates to celebrant in accordance with the

marriage knowing it rather than law as do the couple

to be void. superintendent who are contracting the

registrar. marriage.

It should be an Burden on any No: maintains No: there are no Yes: should act as a deterrent to ensure integrity of Yes: society has an Yes: the overall proposals make it desirable that









Tables of Burdens

offence for any person who acts current level of rights or freedoms marriage system is maintained. interest in whether the Order should be made.

person to solemnise accordingly. protection. Offence at issue. marriages are conducted

a marriage in the relates to absence of in accordance with the

absence of a duly celebrant rather law as do the couple

appointed celebrant. than absence of who are contracting the

registrar. marriage.

Chapter 3 Marriages









Tables of Burdens

3.6 Marriage following the issue of a Registrar General’s Licence

Proposals introducing burdens – Marriages following the issue of a Registrar General’s Licence

Proposals Would the Would the Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose proposal remove proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a any necessary anyone from between the interests RRO to be made?

burden? protection? exercising a right of those affected and

or freedom? the public?

It should be an Burden on any No: maintains No: there are no Yes: should act as a deterrent to ensure integrity of Yes: society has an Yes: the overall proposals make it desirable that

offence for anyone person who acts current levels of rights or freedoms marriage system is maintained. interest in whether the Order should be made.

to solemnise a accordingly. protection. at issue. marriages are conducted

marriage once the in accordance with the

Licence has expired. law as do the couple

who are contracting the

marriage.



It should be an Burden on any No: maintains No: there are no Yes: should act as a deterrent to ensure integrity of Yes: society has an Yes: the overall proposals make it desirable that

offence for any person who acts current levels of rights or freedoms marriage system is maintained. interest in whether the Order should be made.

person to register a accordingly. protection. Offence at issue. marriages are registered

marriage knowing it currently relates to as do the couple who are

to be void. registrar. contracting the marriage

ceremony.









Annex A

209

210







Chapter 3 Marriages









Annex A

3.7 Marriage according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England

Burdens removed or reduced – Preliminaries to marriage according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England

Legislation Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any necessary Would the proposal prevent anyone exercising a right

protection? or freedom?

Marriage Act 1949, S6 Requirement for banns of marriage to be published in the parish church where No: publication of banns would be replaced by joint No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

the parties live, the parish church of a neighbouring parish or the church which church/state preliminaries to marriage. Marriage

is their usual place of worship. would still be publicised.

Marriage Act 1949, S7 Requirement for the parochial church council (or the warden of the chapel) to No: introduction of joint church/state preliminaries No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue. Forthcoming

provide a register book of banns and for the banns to be announced in would mean that marriage is still publicised. marriages could still be announced during Sunday service

accordance with the prescribed words in the Book of Common Prayer. but such an announcement would have no legal effect.

Marriage Act 1949, S8 Requirement for a member of the clergy, or in certain circumstances a lay No: publication of banns would be replaced by joint No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

and S9 person, to publish the banns of matrimony, and to sign the banns register each church/state preliminaries to marriage.

time the banns are announced.

Marriage Act 1949, S11 Requirement for member of the clergy to inspect a banns certificate confirming No: publication of banns would be replaced by joint No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

that the banns have been called in another parish. church/state preliminaries to marriage.

Marriage Act 1949, S13 Requirement for banns of marriage to be published in the local parish church No: provision would continue to exist for the No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue. Marriage

where one of the couple lives there and the other lives in Scotland, Northern preliminaries to be completed in such circumstances would still be able to go ahead in such circumstances.

Ireland or the Irish Republic. - either joint church/state preliminaries or the issue

of an Archbishop of Canterbury’s Special Licence.

Marriage Act 1949, S13 Provision for person resident in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Irish No: provision would continue to exist for the No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue. Marriage

Republic to have their banns published there for a marriage in England or preliminaries to be completed in such circumstances would still be able to go ahead in such circumstances.

Wales. - either joint church/state preliminaries or the issue

of an Archbishop of Canterbury’s Special Licence.

Marriage Act 1949, S14 Requirement for captain or chaplain to publish banns where one of the couple No: provision would continue to exist for the No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue. Marriage

is resident on board ship. preliminaries to be completed in such circumstances would still be able to go ahead in such circumstances.

- either joint church/state preliminaries or the issue

of an Archbishop of Canterbury’s Special Licence.

Marriage Act 1949, S14 Provision for person resident on board ship to have their banns called by No: provision would continue to exist for the No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue. Marriage

chaplain or commanding officer. preliminaries to be completed in such circumstances would still be able to go ahead in such circumstances.

- either joint church/state preliminaries or the issue

of an Archbishop of Canterbury’s Special Licence.

Marriage Act 1949, S15 Provision for couples to apply for a common licence, for objections to be No: issue of a common licence would be replaced by No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

and S16 entered against the issue of such a licence and for these objections to be either joint church/state preliminaries or an

investigated and decided by an ecclesiastical judge. Archbishop of Canterbury’s Licence.

Marriage Act 1949, S17 Provision for marriage according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of No: civil preliminaries would be replaced by joint No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

England to be preceded by civil preliminaries, providing the clergy who is to church/state preliminaries.

solemnise the marriage is agreeable.

Marriage Act 1949, S18, Requirement for banns of marriage to be published in a building directed or No: publication of banns would be replaced by joint No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.









Tables of Burdens

19, 20, 21 and 23 licensed by the Bishop. church/state preliminaries to marriage.

Marriage of British Provision for banns to be called in a Commonwealth Country for marriage in No: provision would continue to exist for the No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

Subjects (Facilities) Acts England or Wales. preliminaries to be completed in such circumstances

1915 and 1916 - either joint church/state preliminaries or the issue

of an Archbishop of Canterbury’s Special Licence.

Sharing of Church Provision for banns to be published in a Church of England building which is No: publication of banns would be replaced by joint No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue. Buildings

Buildings Act 1969, S6 party to a sharing agreement. church/state preliminaries to marriage. could still be party to and benefit from a ‘sharing’

agreement.

Chapter 3 Marriages









Tables of Burdens

3.7 Marriage according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England

Proposals introducing burdens – Preliminaries to marriage according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England

Proposals Would the Would the Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose or proposal remove proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

remove a burden? any necessary anyone from between the interests RRO to be made?

protection? exercising a right of those affected and

or freedom? the public?



Introduction of Requirement on No: the system of No: there are no Yes: the inconvenience to the clergy should be Yes: there is no Yes: the Order would remove much of the

joint church/state member of the joint church/state rights or freedoms negligible, given that information is already collected additional burden on regulation surrounding the publication of banns

preliminaries. clergy to complete a preliminaries would at issue. for the publication of banns and entered into a banns the couple. Marriages and introduce a much more streamlined system

notice of marriage ensure that all register. This activity would cease and be replaced by according to the rites for the preliminaries to marriage in the Church

and to send it to marriages are completion of the notice forms. and ceremonies of the of England.

registration publicised and that Church of England

authority. a person’s legal would be subject to the

capacity to marry is same checks and

established prior to safeguards as for all

the marriage other marriages.

ceremony taking

place.

Introduction of Requirement on No: the system of No: there are no Yes: benefits in terms of maintaining the integrity of Yes: it is in the interests Yes: the additional burden on the couple of

joint church/state couple to produce joint church/state rights or freedoms the system of marriage is proportionate to the of the general public having to produce documents is negligible. It is

preliminaries. to member of the preliminaries would at issue. additional burden of the couple having to produce that checks on a person’s desirable that the Order should be made.

clergy evidence of ensure that a evidence. capacity to marry are

their name, age, person’s legal made prior to a marriage

marital status, usual capacity to marry is ceremony.

address and established prior to

nationality. the marriage

ceremony taking

place.

Introduction of Requirement on No: the system of No: there are no Yes: the burden on registration authorities would be Yes: there is no Yes: the new system allows for greater use of

joint church/state registration joint church/state rights or freedoms negligible given that this process is adopted for all additional burden on information technology, with limited impact on

preliminaries. authority to enter preliminaries would at issue. other marriages. the couple. Marriages the couple.

notices of marriage ensure that all according to the rites

onto central marriages are and ceremonies of the

database and to publicised and that Church of England

publicise all such a person’s legal would be subject to the

notices. capacity to marry is same checks and

established prior to safeguards as for all

the marriage other marriages.

ceremony taking

place.









Annex A

211

212







Chapter 3 Marriages









Annex A

3.7 Marriage according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England

Proposals introducing burdens – Preliminaries to marriage according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England

Proposals Would the Would the Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose or proposal remove proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

remove a burden? any necessary anyone from between the interests RRO to be made?

protection? exercising a right of those affected and

or freedom? the public?

Introduction of Requirement on No: if anything the No: there are no Yes: the burden would be negligible given the Yes: there is no Yes: the proposal is desirable as it will replace the

joint church/state Registrar General to proposal introduces rights or freedoms introduction of a central database. additional burden on present arrangement for those marrying

preliminaries. publicise all notices. additional at issue. the couple or the clergy, according to the rites and ceremonies of the

protection. For the but proposal will help to Church of England which at present is limited

first time, there will protect the interests of to the publication of banns.

be a central list of those choosing to marry.

all notices of

marriage, linked to

a central database of

life events.

Introduction of Requirement on No: registration No: couple would Yes: the benefits to the public of adopting this system Yes: would ensure that a Yes: the overall proposals make it desirable that

joint church/state registration authority will still be able to outweigh the effect of the burden on the registration couple’s capacity to the Order should be made.

preliminaries. authorities to check confirm that there is marry, once a authority. marry continues to be

accuracy and no impediment to document had been checked before an

completeness of all proposed marriage - issued confirming authority for the

notices and to issue maintains current there was no marriage to proceed is

Schedule. levels of protection. impediment to issued, and at the same

proposed marriage time improve the service

and providing to those wishing to

member of clergy marry.

agreed to perform

marriage ceremony.









Tables of Burdens

Chapter 3 Marriages









Tables of Burdens

3.7 Marriage according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England

Burdens removed or reduced – Ceremony and registration of marriages according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England

Legislation Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any necessary Would the proposal prevent anyone exercising a right

protection? or freedom?

Marriage Act 1949, S4, Marriages according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England must No: there would continue to be a requirement for No: the time of a marriage would be a matter for

S5 and S7 take place in accordance with the Book of Common Prayer, between the hours both the bride and groom to be present at the negotiation between the couple and the celebrant.

of 8am and 6pm. marriage ceremony, which must take place in the

presence of two witnesses and the celebrant,

regardless of the time at which the marriage takes

place.

Marriage Act 1949, S18, Requirement on members of the clergy to register all marriages they solemnise, No: there would continue to be a requirement for No: although there would no longer be statutory marriage

S54, S55 and S59 in duplicate marriage registers provided by the Registrar General that they are all marriages to be registered and penalties for any registers, denominations could continue to maintain a

required to keep safe. failure to do so. non-statutory register of all marriages that take place in

their buildings.

Marriage Act 1949, S12 Marriage must take place in one of the churches or chapels in which banns have No: the system of joint church/state preliminaries to No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

been published, within 3 months of the publication of banns. marriage will replace the publication of banns, and

ensure that appropriate preliminaries are completed

before a marriage ceremony takes place.

Marriage Act 1949, S46 Provision for couple to follow their civil ceremony with the Church of England No: civil ceremony would take place in accordance No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

marriage ceremony. with provisions of Marriage Act 1949. Following

religious ceremony would have no legal effect.

Marriage Act 1949, S56 Members of the clergy are able to ask the couple prior to the marriage ceremony No: members of the clergy, as celebrants would have No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

for the information that is to be recorded in the marriage register. a similar provision regarding the information that is

recorded on the marriage schedule.

Marriage Act 1949, S57 Members of the clergy are required, on a quarterly basis, to send copies of any No: information would already be held on central No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

registrations they make to their local superintendent registrar. database so the absence of quarterly copies would

have no impact.

Marriage Act 1949, S62 Requirement on the incumbent of a disused chapel to deliver any register books No: information would already be held on central No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

in his or her custody to the incumbent of the local parish church who, in turn, database so the absence of quarterly copies would

is required to submit copies from those registers to the local superintendent have no impact.

registrar.

Marriage Act 1949, S73 Requirement on the registrar of every diocese to send to the Registrar General, No: Registrar General will maintain a list of No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

on an annual basis, a list of all churches and chapels within the diocese where celebrants rather than buildings, to continue to

marriages according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England can ensure that marriages take place in accordance with

take place; requirement on the Registrar General to make available a list of such the provisions of the Marriage Act 1949.

buildings and to send a copy to every registrar and superintendent registrar.

Marriage Act 1949, S75 Offence for anyone to solemnise a marriage outside the hours of 8am and 6pm No: marriages could take place at any time. Such No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

or without banns having been duly published. restrictions are no longer necessary in today’s society.









Annex A

213

214







Chapter 3 Marriages









Annex A

3.7 Marriage according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England

Burdens removed or reduced – Ceremony and registration of marriages according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England

Legislation Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any necessary Would the proposal prevent anyone exercising a right

protection? or freedom?

Marriage Act 1949, S75 Offence for anyone to solemnise a marriage in any place other than a church or No: it would be legally possible for marriages to No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

and S76 other building in which banns of marriage may be published or in which take place anywhere, providing a duly appointed

marriages according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England may celebrant is present.

be solemnised.

Marriage Act 1949, S76 Offence for members of the clergy to omit or fail to register a marriage, or to No: responsibility for the registration of marriages No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

fail to deliver their copies to their local superintendent registrar. would lie with the registration authority. It would

be an offence for any person to refuse or fail to

register a marriage.









Tables of Burdens

Chapter 3 Marriages









Tables of Burdens

3.7 Marriage according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England

Proposals introducing burdens – Ceremony and registration of marriages according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England

Proposals Would the Would the Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose or proposal remove proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

remove a burden? any necessary anyone from between the interests of RRO to be made?

protection? exercising a right those affected and the

or freedom? public?



Church of England A new burden No: maintains No: it is likely that Yes: need to ensure there is clarity about when Yes: maintains clarity Yes: the overall proposals make it desirable that

marriages to would be placed on current level of the current marriage ceremony has been concluded. New about when marriage the Order should be made.

include a the couple and the protections. It is marriage ceremony burden, which in respect of the Church of England is ceremony has been

declaration by the member of the likely that the used by the Church negligible, achieves this and also puts everyone on a concluded but at the

couple that they clergy to say the current marriage of England ‘level playing field’ in this respect. same time introduces

accept each other as relevant ceremony used by contains such some flexibility for those

husband and wife, declarations. the Church of declarations and who wish to personalise

and a declaration England contains therefore meets this or adapt their marriage

by the member of such declarations new requirement. ceremony.

the clergy that the and therefore meets

couple are husband this new

and wife. requirement.

Member of the Enabling provision No: this would No: there are no Yes: should ensure that the quality of the information Yes: it is of general Yes: the proposed system for the registration of

clergy should be that applies to replace the current rights or freedoms should not suffer. Information would already be interest for the marriages would be overall less burdensome

able to verify with member of the provision that at issue. shown on the schedule and would just need to be information to be as than the present system. It would make best use

the couple the clergy who is to applies to those verified with the couple. accurate as possible at of information technology and replace an out-

information to be solemnise the who are required to the time of the marriage. dated, paper-based system.

recorded in the marriage. register marriages. The inconvenience to

marriage schedule. Ensures that the those wishing to marry is

quality of the negligible.

information should

not suffer.

Use the marriage Requirement on the No: this would No: although there Yes: use of the schedule instead of registers allows for Yes: the proposed system Yes: the proposed system for the registration of

schedule as the couple, witnesses replace the current would no longer be a much improved, more efficient system for the would reduce the costs marriages would be overall less burdensome

registration and the celebrant to signing of the statutory marriage registration of marriages, that makes best use of to the public purse than the present system. It would make best use

document instead sign the schedule. marriage register. registers, modern technology. significantly. of information technology and replace an out-

of marriage denominations dated, paper-based system.

registers. could continue to

maintain a non-

statutory register of

all marriages that

take place in their

buildings.

Use the marriage Duty on couple to No: the proposal No: there are no Yes: the inconvenience to the couple in practical Yes: the proposed system Yes: the proposed system for the registration of

schedule as the return schedule to aims to ensure that rights or freedoms terms is negligible. The benefit would be a much would reduce the costs marriages would be overall less burdensome

registration registration the marriage at issue. improved, more efficient system, with more timely to the public purse than the present system. It would make best use

document instead authority that issued schedule is returned and consistent collection of information. significantly. of information technology and replace an out-

of marriage it. to the registration dated, paper-based system.

registers. authority so that

the marriage can be

registered. Duty

placed on couple as









Annex A

they are affected the

most if marriage

not registered.

215

216







Chapter 3 Marriages









Annex A

3.7 Marriage according to the rites and ceremonies of the church of England

Proposals introducing burdens – Ceremony and registration of marriages according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England

Proposals Would the Would the Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose or proposal remove proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

remove a burden? any necessary anyone from between the interests of RRO to be made?

protection? exercising a right those affected and the

or freedom? public?

Remove registers Requirement on No: the schedule No: there are no Yes: registration authorities would no longer need to Yes: the proposed system Yes: the proposed system for the registration of

and enter marriages registration system would still rights or freedoms deal with the collection of quarterly copies. Instead, would reduce the costs marriages would be overall less burdensome

direct onto central authorities to require the at issue. they would administer a much more efficient system to the public purse than the present system. It would make best use

database. register all registration of all for the registration of marriages, that makes best use significantly. of information technology and replace an out-

marriages. marriages, and legal of modern technology. dated, paper-based system.

and administrative

procedures would

be in place to

ensure compliance.

It should be an Burden on any No: arguably No: there are no Yes: should act as a deterrent to ensure integrity of Yes: society has an Yes: the overall proposals makes it desirable that

offence for a member of the improves current rights or freedoms marriage system is maintained. interest in whether the Order should be made.

member of the clergy who acts level of protections. at issue. marriages are conducted

clergy to solemnise accordingly. in accordance with the

a marriage knowing law as do the couple who

it to be void. are contracting the

marriage.

It should be an Burden on any No: arguably No: there are no Yes: should act as a deterrent to ensure integrity of Yes: society has an Yes: the overall proposals make it desirable that

offence for the member of the clegy improves current rights or freedoms marriage system is maintained. interest in whether the Order should be made.

member of the who acts level of protections. at issue. marriages are registered

clergy to fail to sign accordingly. in accordance with the

the marriage law as do the couple who

schedule or to are contracting the

comply with the marriage.

provisions of the

1949 Act or any

associated

regulations.

It should be an Burden on any No: maintains No: there are no Yes: should act as a deterrent to ensure integrity of Yes: society has an Yes: the overall proposals make it desirable that

offence for any person who acts current level of rights or freedoms marriage system is maintained. interest in whether the Order should be made.

person to register a accordingly. protection. at issue. marriages are registered

marriage knowing Offence currently in accordance with the

it to be void. relates to those who law as do the couple who

are required to are contracting the

register marriages. marriage.









Tables of Burdens

Chapter 3 Marriages









Tables of Burdens

3.7 Marriage according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church in Wales

Burdens removed or reduced – Ceremony and registration of marriages according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church in Wales

Legislation Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any necessary Would the proposal prevent anyone exercising a right

protection? or freedom?

Marriage Act 1949, S7 Marriages according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church in Wales must No: there would be a requirement for couple to No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

take place in accordance with the Book of Common Prayer. accept each other as husband and wife, and for

member of clergy to declare couple are now

husband and wife. Current form of marriage

ceremony meets this requirement.

Marriage Act 1949, S73 Requirement on the registrar of every diocese to send to the Registrar General, No: Registrar General will maintain a list of No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

on an annual basis, a list of all churches and chapels within the diocese where celebrants rather than buildings, to continue to

marriages according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church in Wales can take ensure that marriages take place in accordance with

place; requirement on the Registrar General to make available a list of such the provisions of the Marriage Act 1949.

buildings and to send a copy to every registrar and superintendent registrar.

Marriage Act 1949, Requirement on members of the clergy to register all marriages they solemnise, No: there would continue to be a requirement for No: although there would no longer be statutory marriage

S18, S54, S55 and S59 in duplicate marriage registers provided by the Registrar General that they are all marriages to be registered and penalties for any registers, denominations could continue to maintain a

required to keep safe. failure to do so. non-statutory register of all marriages that take place in

their buildings.

Marriage Act 1949, S56 Members of the clergy are able to ask the couple prior to the marriage ceremony No: members of the clergy, as celebrants would have No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

for the information that is to be recorded in the marriage register. a similar provision regarding the information that is

recorded on the marriage schedule.

Marriage Act 1949, S62 Requirement on the incumbent of a disused chapel to deliver any register books No: information would already be held on central No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

in his or her custody to the incumbent of the local parish church who, in turn, database so the absence of quarterly copies would

is required to submit copies from those registers to the local superintendent have no impact.

registrar.

Marriage Act 1949, S76 Offence for members of the clergy to omit or fail to register a marriage, or to fail No: responsibility for the registration of marriages No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

to deliver their copies to their local superintendent registrar. would lie with the registration authority. It would

be an offence for any person to refuse or fail to

register a marriage.









Annex A

217

218







Chapter 3 Marriages









Annex A

3.7 Marriage according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church in Wales

Proposals introducing burdens – Ceremony and registration of marriages according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church in Wales

Proposals Would the Would the proposal Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose remove any proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a necessary anyone from between the interests of RRO to be made?

burden? protection? exercising a right those affected and the

or freedom? public?



Church in Wales A new burden No: maintains No: it is likely that Yes: need to ensure there is clarity about when Yes: maintains clarity Yes: the overall proposals make it desirable that

marriages to would be placed on current level of the current marriage ceremony has been concluded. New about when marriage the Order should be made.

include a the couple and the protections. It is marriage ceremony burden, which in respect of the Church in Wales is ceremony has been

declaration by the member of the likely that the used by the Church negligible, achieves this and also puts everyone on a concluded but at the

couple that they clergy to say the current marriage in Wales contains ‘level playing field’ in this respect. same time introduces

accept each other as relevant ceremony used by such declarations some flexibility for those

husband and wife, declarations. the Church in Wales and therefore meets who wish to personalise

and a declaration contains such this new or adapt their marriage

by the member of declarations and requirement. ceremony.

the clergy that the therefore meets this

couple are husband new requirement.

and wife.



Remove the need Requirement on No: maintains No: although there Yes: information would be collected centrally much Yes: the Registrar Yes: the overall proposals make it desirable that

for marriage Registrar General to current level of would no longer be more quickly than at present. General currently the Order should be made.

registers. supply blank protections. Forms statutory marriage provides marriage

marriage schedules will be serially registers, registers. This burden

for completion by numbered so missing denominations would replace that

members of the ones are easy to could continue to requirement.

clergy. detect. maintain a non-

statutory register of

all marriages that

take place in their

buildings.

Use the marriage Requirement on the No: this would No: although there Yes: use of the schedule instead of registers allows for Yes: the proposed system Yes: the proposed system for the registration of

schedule as the couple, witnesses replace the current would no longer be an improved, more efficient system for the would reduce the costs marriages would be overall less burdensome than

registration and the celebrant to signing of the statutory marriage registration of marriages, that makes best use of to the public purse. the present system. It would make best use of

document instead sign the schedule. marriage register. registers, modern technology. information technology.

of marriage denominations

registers. could continue to

maintain a non-

statutory register of

all marriages that

take place in their

buildings.









Tables of Burdens

Chapter 3 Marriages









Tables of Burdens

3.7 Marriage according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church in Wales

Proposals introducing burdens – Ceremony and registration of marriages according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church in Wales

Proposals Would the Would the proposal Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose remove any proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a necessary anyone from between the interests of RRO to be made?

burden? protection? exercising a right those affected and the

or freedom? public?

Use the marriage Duty on the clergy No: the proposal No: there are no Yes: the inconvenience to the clergy in practical terms Yes: the proposed system Yes: the proposed system for the registration of

schedule as the to return schedule aims to ensure that rights or freedoms is negligible. The benefit would be an improved, would reduce the costs marriages would be overall less burdensome than

registration to registration the marriage at issue. more efficient system, with more timely and to the public purse. the present system. It would make best use of

document instead authority that schedule is returned consistent collection of information. information technology.

of marriage issued it. to the registration

registers authority so that the

marriage can be

registered. Duty

placed on clergy as

they would hold

blank schedules and

would be best placed

to explain any that

have not been

returned eg spoilt,

lost in transit, etc.

Remove registers Requirement on No: the schedule No: there are no Yes: registration authorities would no longer need to Yes: the proposed system Yes: the proposed system for the registration of

and enter marriages registration system would still rights or freedoms deal with the collection of quarterly copies. Instead, would reduce the costs marriages would be overall less burdensome than

direct onto central authorities to require the at issue. they would administer a much more efficient system to the public purse the present system. It would make best use of

database. register all registration of all for the registration of marriages, that makes best use significantly. information technology and replace an out-

marriages. marriages, and legal of modern technology. dated, paper-based system.

and administrative

procedures would be

in place to ensure

compliance.

It should be an Burden on any No: arguably No: there are no Yes: should act as a deterrent to ensure integrity of Yes: society has an Yes: the overall proposals make it desirable that

offence for the member of the improves current rights or freedoms marriage system is maintained. interest in whether the Order should be made.

member of the clergy who acts level of protections. at issue. marriages are registered

clergy to fail to sign accordingly. in accordance with the

the marriage law as do the couple

schedule, to fail to who are contracting the

return the schedule marriage.

or to comply with

the provisions of

the 1949 Act or

any associated

regulations.

It should be an Burden on any No: arguably No: there are no Yes: should act as a deterrent to ensure integrity of Yes: society has an Yes: the overall proposals makes it desirable that

offence for a member of the improves current rights or freedoms marriage system is maintained. interest in whether the Order should be made.









Annex A

member of the clergy who acts level of protections. at issue. marriages are conducted

clergy to solemnise accordingly. in accordance with the

a marriage knowing law as do the couple

it to be void. who are contracting the

marriage.

219

220







Chapter 3 Marriages









Annex A

3.9 Miscellaneous provisions

Burdens removed or reduced – Miscellaneous provisions

Legislation Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any necessary Would the proposal prevent anyone exercising a right

protection? or freedom?

Marriage Act 1949, S27 Members of the Armed Forces serving abroad have to comply with the No: would be replaced with provision to give notice No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

provisions of the 1949 Act by giving notice in person to a superintendent to commanding officer. Provision already applies to

registrar. those serving on board ship - proposal is to extend

the provision to apply to all serving members of the

Armed Forces.

Marriage with Requirement on those wishing to obtain a certificate of no impediment to give No: there would continue to be a requirement for No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

Foreigners Act 1906, notice to their local superintendent registrar. notice of marriage to be given, but to any

Para 2(b) of Schedule A registration authority, so that the person’s identity

and legal capacity to marry could be established.

Marriage with Requirement on superintendent registrars to retain all notice forms and to enter No: there would still be a requirement for notices to No: those who use marriage notice books for commercial

Foreigners Act 1906, details into marriage notice book. be publicised locally. Notices would also be reasons would not generally be interested in the details of

Para 3 of Schedule A published on the General Register Office website. those marrying abroad.

Marriage with Role of Registrar General in investigation of caveats entered against notices No: Registrar General would continue to have a role No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

Foreigners Act 1906, given to a consular marriage officer. in the investigation of caveats entered with a

Para 6(b) of Schedule A registration authority; the Director of Consular

Services at the F&CO would deal with caveats

against notices entered with a consular marriage

officer.









Tables of Burdens

Chapter 3 Marriages









Tables of Burdens

3.9 Miscellaneous provisions

Proposals introducing burdens – Miscellaneous provisions

Proposals Would the proposal Would the Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

impose or remove a proposal remove proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

burden? any necessary anyone from between the interests of RRO to be made?

protection? exercising a right those affected and the

or freedom? public?

Serving members of New burden on No: a person’s legal No: there are no Yes: the burden would recognise the difficulties those Yes: the proposal Yes: the overall proposals make it desirable that

the Armed Forces commanding officers capacity to marry rights or freedoms at serving in the forces have in complying with the recognise the difficulties the Order should be made.

should be able to to accept notices, in England and issue. requirements of the Marriage Act 1949, and provide those serving in the

give notice to their and on serving Wales would still them with a more flexible system that better meets forces have in complying

Commanding members of the be verified prior to their needs. with the requirements of

Officer. Armed Forces to give the marriage the Marriage Act 1949,

notice to their ceremony. but retains equivalent

Commanding Arguably, a safeguards to ensure that

Officer. Commanding only those with the legal

Officer would capacity to marry do so.

know more about

a person’s legal

status than a

superintendent

registrar.

Those wanting a Requirement on No: transfer of No: there are no Yes: with the removal of the statutory posts of Yes: the proposal would Yes: the proposal to allow couples to give notice

certificate of no registration responsibility from rights or freedoms at superintendent registrar, registration authorities introduce greater to any registration authority would be overall

impediment would authorities to accept registration officers issue. would have greater freedom and flexibility about how flexibility in how notice less burdensome than the current system. It

give notice to any notices of marriage, to registration they deliver registration services. of marriage is given, but allows for greater use of information technology

registration attest them, enter authority would at the same time retain and provides individuals with greater choice

authority. them onto the not remove any many of the current about where to access registration services.

central database and necessary safeguards that help to

publicise details protections. deter fraudulent or

locally; requirement Registration bigamous marriages.

on Registrar General authorities would

to publicise notices still be required to

centrally. comply with the

requirements of

the Marriage with

Foreigners Act

1906.









Annex A

221

222







Chapter 5 ‘Through life’ records









Annex A

5.2 ‘Through life’ records

Burdens removed or reduced

Legislation Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any necessary Would the proposal prevent anyone exercising a right

protection? or freedom?

Births and Deaths Burdens associated with the requirement to register birth, still-births and deaths No. The registration of life events would continue. No. No-one would be prevented from exercising a right or

Registration Act 1953, in separate paper registers. See chapter 2. freedom they may reasonable expect to continue.

various sections.

Marriage Act 1949, Burdens associated with the requirement to register marriages in paper registers. No. The registration of marriage would continue. No. No-one would be prevented from exercising a right or

various sections. See chapter 3. freedom they may reasonable expect to continue.









Tables of Burdens

Tables of Burdens

Chapter 5 ‘Through life’ records

5.2 ‘Through life’ records

Proposals introducing burdens

Proposals Would the Would the Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose proposal remove proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a any necessary anyone from between the interests RRO to be made?

burden? protection? exercising a right of those affected and

or freedom? the public?

Provisions enabling A new burden No. The proposals No. Although Yes. The overall burden is proportionate to the Yes. The creation of Yes. We consider that the proposed system will

the Registrar would be placed on will not interfere people will not be benefits. The proposals will result in the creation of a ‘through life’ records remove burdens from individuals when applying

General to link the Registrar with the registration able to opt out of more reactive system, holding up-to-date information will benefit individuals for services and benefits and from organisations

registration records General and his of life events. The having their records on people. as well as Government who handle registration information as part of

to create ‘through staff and on those linking of records linked, the linking and society as a whole. their processes.

life’ records. registering events will increase the information will not The proposals will result

who would give the protection afforded be freely available, in savings to the public

information. to individuals. thus protecting purse, to individuals

Records will only individuals and and to private and

be linked where it is their rights and public sector

possible to do so. freedoms. organisations.

Requirement on the There would be a No. The proposals No. There are no Yes. The burden of maintaining the records is Yes. Maintaining Yes. We consider that the proposed system will

Registrar General to new burden on the will protect rights or freedoms proportionate to the benefits to Government, accurate records is in the remove burdens from individuals when applying

maintain ‘through Registrar General to individuals by at issue. individuals and society from having accurate records. interest of individuals as for services and benefits and from organisations

life’ records. maintain all ensuring records are well as private and who handle registration information as part of

registration records. accurate. public sector their processes.

This would include organisations and the

‘through life’ public who may use

records. (See them.

paragraph 10.2.12).

Provisions for the The burdens No. The proposals No. There are no Yes. The burden of correcting and updating records is Yes. Maintaining Yes. We consider that the proposed system for

correction and associated with will protect rights or freedoms proportionate to the benefits to Government, accurate records is in the updating and correcting records will remove

updating of correcting and individuals by at issue. individuals and society from having accurate records. interest of individuals as some existing burdens and make it desirable for

‘through life’ updating ensuring records are well as private and the RRO to be made. The benefits of having

records. registration records accurate. public sector accurate and up-to-date information on

would apply to organisations and the individuals are also desirable.

‘through life’ public who may use

records. See section them.

on Updating and

Correcting Records

for further details.









Annex A

223

224







Chapter 5 ‘Through life’ records









Annex A

5.2 ‘Through life’ records

Proposals introducing burdens

Proposals Would the Would the Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose proposal remove proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a any necessary anyone from between the interests RRO to be made?

burden? protection? exercising a right of those affected and

or freedom? the public?

Provisions enabling This would be a No. The proposals No. There are no Yes. The inclusion of other records on the central Yes. The proposals will Yes. We consider that the proposals will result in

the Registrar new burden on the will not interfere rights or freedoms database will benefit the public and other users of be of benefit to the reduction of burdens on individuals and on

General to include Registrar General with the registration at issue. The database. Linking any new records to registration individuals as well as to users of registration records. Enhancing the

other records on the who would include of life events or the proposals will information will enhance the benefits of having users of registration value of ‘through life’ records will be desirable to

central database. other records on the creation of the actually increase the ‘through life’ records. records. Including other everyone.

Types of records database. central database. rights of people to records will result in

would be specified Other records have certain events overall savings to the

in subordinate would not be added included on the public and the public

provisions to the without the database. purse.

order. agreement of either

the holders of those

records or the

individuals

concerned.

Provisions enabling This would be a No. The provision No. The proposals Yes. Individuals will benefit from improved services Yes. The proposals strike Yes. The proposals will remove burdens from

the Registrar new burden on the will allow a wider will extend the and from being able to have records of other events a balance between the individuals from having to continually present

General to charge Registrar General, range of records to benefits of having recorded on the central database. interests of individuals evidence of events when obtaining services and

fees for adding his staff and be included on the ‘through life’ records and of the Registrar benefits and makes it desirable for the RRO to

records to the registration central database and and offer new General. be made.

central database. authorities who will offer new services to

Fees to be charged would collect the services to individuals.

would be set out in fee and on individuals.

subordinate individuals

provisions to the requesting records

order. to be added who

will pay the fee.









Tables of Burdens

Chapter 5 ‘Through life’ records









Tables of Burdens

5.2 ‘Through life’ records

Proposals introducing burdens

Proposals Would the Would the Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose proposal remove proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a any necessary anyone from between the interests RRO to be made?

burden? protection? exercising a right of those affected and

or freedom? the public?

Provisions to ask This would be a No. The proposal No. No one will be Yes. The benefit would be more accurate and up-to- Yes. It is in the public Yes. We consider that the proposed system will

people to confirm new burden on the will help to ensure prevented from date records and the need for fewer corrections. interest as well as in the remove burdens from individuals when applying

record linkage. Registrar General the accuracy of exercising any right interest of individuals for services and benefits and from organisations

and registration ‘though life’ or freedom. and users of registration who handle registration information as part of

authorities who records. records that the their processes.

would make the information is accurate.

link and on those

people registering

events who confirm

it.

Provisions There would be a No. Controlling No. The proposals Yes. The burden of controlling access to the linking Yes. As well as Does not remove a burden but will ensure the

specifying who can new burden on the who has access to will not affect information is proportionate to the benefit of protecting the security and integrity of the information is

access linking Registrar General the linking people’s ability to protecting people’s privacy and helping to reduce individual, the proposals maintained.

information. and registration information will access registration fraud. will protect the public

authorities who protect the privacy records. purse by helping to

would enforce the of individuals as prevent fraud.

provisions. well as protecting

the public purse by

helping to prevent

fraud.









Annex A

225

226







Chapter 5 ‘Through life’ records









Annex A

5.3 Updating and correcting records

Burdens removed or reduced

Legislation Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any necessary Would the proposal prevent anyone exercising a right

protection? or freedom?

Births and Deaths Re-registration of birth records to include father’s details - removal of No. There will continue to be procedures in place to No. The facility to update records will remain, thus

Registration Act 1953 requirement for declarations to be in prescribed format; replace reference to re- update records. protecting people’s rights and freedoms.

S10 A(1) registration with update.

Births and Deaths Re-registration of birth records to include father’s details - requirement to sign No. No. The facility to update records will remain, thus

Registration Act 1953 registers. protecting people’s rights and freedoms.

S10 A(2)

Births and Deaths Provisions for adding or altering forename of child on a birth record within 12 No. There will continue to be procedures in place to No. The facility to update records will remain, thus

Registration Act 1953 months. update records. protecting people’s rights and freedoms.

S13

Births and Deaths Re-registration of birth records when parents marry - removal of requirement to No. Proposals will allow for information to be given No. The facility to update records will remain, thus

Registration Act 1953 attend in person at register office or other place; replace reference to re- in other ways. protecting people’s rights and freedoms.

S14 registration with update.

Births and Deaths Re-registration after declaration of parentage - replace reference to re- No. Proposals will allow for information to be given No. The facility to update records will remain, thus

Registration Act 1953 registration with update. in other ways. protecting people’s rights and freedoms.

S14A

Births and Deaths Correction of errors in the prescribed manner - removal of reference to ‘clerical’ No. There will continue to be procedures in place No. The facility to correct records will remain ensuring

Registration Act 1953 and to registers. for correcting and updating records. accurate information is held about individuals.

S29 (2)

Births and Deaths Provisions for the correction of errors of fact or substance. No. There will continue to be procedures in place to No.

Registration Act 1953 make such corrections.

S29 (3)

Marriage Act 1949 Correction of errors in marriage registers, attendance of individuals to witness No. There will continue to be procedures in place No. The facility to correct records will remain ensuring

S61 (1) – (5) corrections, requirement to send copy of corrected entries within 7 days. for correcting and updating records. accurate information is held about individuals.









Tables of Burdens

Chapter 5 ‘Through life’ records









Tables of Burdens

5.3 Updating and corecting records

Proposals introducing burdens

Proposals Would the Would the Would the proposal Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose proposal remove prevent anyone benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a any necessary from exercising a between the interests of RRO to be made?

burden? protection? right or freedom? those affected and the

public?

Provisions specifying There will be a new No. The proposal The original Yes. The benefits would include the protection of the Yes. It is in the public We consider that the proposals for updating

who would have burden on the will safeguard the information will not individual and the safeguarding of registration interest to protect the records will result in an overall reduction in

access to original Registrar General, security of the be routinely information. The proposal would also help with to privacy of individuals burdens.

information in cases his staff and information and available to those prevent fraud. The introduction of the burdens is and to assist with the

of corrections and registration the privacy of accessing registration therefore proportionate. fight against crime,

updates. authorities to individuals. records, but will be including fraud.

Requirement to control access to available to those

apply framework. the original with a genuine need

information in to see it.

cases of corrections

or updates.

Introduction of There will be a new No. The proposal No. The proposal Yes. The introduction of this burden is proportionate Yes. The introduction of We consider that the proposals for updating

prescribed fees for burden on the would not remove would not prevent to the benefits that will result from having up-to-date fees for certain updates records will result in an overall reduction in

some types of Registrar General any necessary anyone from records and a simplified system for correcting and will protect the public burdens.

updates to and on registration protection. There exercising a right or updating records. purse.

registration records. officers to collect will be no fee for freedom.

Fees to be set out in fees and on those updating the

subordinate requesting the father’s details on a

provisions to the update to pay birth record or for

order. them. corrections.

Provisions allowing This would be a No. The provisions No. The provisions Yes. The proposals are in response to customer Yes. The proposals strike We consider that the proposals will provide new

the Registrar burden on the will not remove any will not prevent demand and will deliver improved services to a fair balance between and improved services to individuals and users

General to update Registrar General, necessary protection anyone from customers. the needs of those of registration information. Overall there will be

records to include his staff and and will not exercising any right requesting such updates, a reduction on the burdens on individuals from

other changes not registration interfere with the or freedom. They those making them and having to continually present evidence of certain

directly linked to authorities who updating and will introduce new the wider needs of users changes.

the registration of would make the correcting of services and of registration

life events. updates and on registration records. freedoms. information.

individuals who

request them.









Annex A

227

228







Chapter 6 Privacy and access to registration records









Annex A

6.2 and 6.3 Classification and computerisation, central database and records management

Burdens removed or reduced

Legislation Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any necessary Would the proposal prevent anyone exercising a right

protection? or freedom?

Births and Deaths Burdens associated with using a paper-based system for registering birth, still- No. The registration of life events would continue. No. No-one would be prevented for exercising a right or

Registration Act 1953, births and deaths. See chapter 2 and chapter 7. freedom they may reasonable expect to continue.

various sections

Marriage Act 1949, Burdens associated with using a paper-based system for registering marriages. No. The registration of marriage would continue. No. No-one would be prevented for exercising a right or

various sections See chapter 3 and chapter 7. freedom they may reasonable expect to continue.

Registration Service Act Burdens associated with having a paper-based system. See chapters 7 and 10. No. The registration of life events would continue. No. No-one would be prevented for exercising a right or

1953, various sections freedom they may reasonable expect to continue.







Proposals introducing burdens



Proposals Would the Would the proposal Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose remove any proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a necessary anyone from between the interests RRO to be made?

burden? protection? exercising a right of those affected and

or freedom? the public?

Proposal to restrict See burdens

access to some described in

information in section on Access

registration records. (6.4).

Proposal to make See burdens

available historic described in

records. section on Historic

Records (6.6).

Requirement to The proposal No. The registration No. An electronic Yes. The proposal would allow the creation of Yes. Having a system for Yes. Moving to an electronic system for

provide a system for would impose a of life events would system would electronic records that would be beneficial to registering life events is registration will remove burdens on the public,

registering life burden on the continue. Any increase people’s individuals, Government and private sector in the both in the central and local Government and the public

events. Registrar General system would have freedom to access organisations. interest of those affected purse.

and on registration safeguards built into registration records. and in the wider public

authorities who it. interest.

register events.

(Also see chapter

10).









Tables of Burdens

Chapter 6 Privacy and access to registration records









Tables of Burdens

6.2 and 6.3 Classification and computerisation, central database and records management

Proposals introducing burdens

Proposals Would the Would the proposal Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose remove any proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a necessary anyone from between the interests RRO to be made?

burden? protection? exercising a right of those affected and

or freedom? the public?

Requirement on the This would be a No. The proposal No. The proposals Yes. The proposals would help to maximise the Yes. Electronically Yes. Moving to an electronic system for

Registrar General to new burden on the would not remove would maximise the benefits of moving to an electronic system for capturing existing registration will remove burdens of the public,

capture on the Registrar General any necessary availability of registration by electronically capturing records that records would be in the central and local Government and the public

central database who would be protection but registration records. are widely used for official purposes. interest of individuals purse.

existing registration required to would in fact and of the users of

records. electronically increase the registration records.

capture some protection of

existing records. registration records

and to individuals

that comes from

moving to an

electronic system.

Requirement on the This would be a No. The proposals No. Increasing the Yes. The benefits will be the increased availability of Yes. The proposals Overall the proposals will result in a reduction

Registrar General to new burden on the would not remove availability of certain records without the constraints of purchasing balance the interests of in the burdens associated with accessing

release historic Registrar General. any necessary historic records will certificates. those named in the registration records under the current system.

registration records. protection. help to safeguard records and users of the

the rights of people information.

to see that

information.









Annex A

229

230







Chapter 6 Privacy and access to registration records









Annex A

6.4 Access

Burdens removed or reduced

Legislation Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any necessary Would the proposal prevent anyone exercising a right

protection? or freedom?

Births and Deaths Requirement on the Registrar General to produce indexes to records he holds. No. There would be alternative methods of No. Those requiring access to registration records would

Registration Act 1953 identifying registration records. continue to have it.

S30 (1)-(1A)

Births and Deaths Provisions to allow searching of the Registrar General’s indexes and the No. There would be alternative methods of No. Access to registration records would continue.

Registration Act 1953 purchase of certified copies (certificates). searching for registration records and accessing the

S30 (2) information. The issuing of certificates would

continue in a more limited way as a transitional

measure.

Births and Deaths Provisions to allow the Registrar General to make searches of still-birth records No. The Registrar General would continue to have No. Access to registration records would continue.

Registration Act 1953 and to issue certificates – removal of need to make still-birth records available discretion to give access to still-birth records. There

S30 (3) via certificates. would be alternative methods of searching for

records and accessing information.

Births and Deaths Requirement on superintendent registrars to produce indexes and make them No. There would be alternative methods of No. Those requiring access to registration records would

Registration Act 1953 available; requirement on the Registrar General to provide the forms for so identifying and accessing registration records. The continue to have it.

S31 (1)-(2) doing; provisions for allowing searches of these indexes and the purchase of issuing of certificates would continue in a more

certificates. limited way as a transitional measure.

Births and Deaths Requirement on registrars to allow searches of registers they hold; provisions to No. There would be alternative methods of No. Access to registration records would continue.

Registration Act 1953 produce certificates. identifying and accessing registration records. The

S32 issuing of certificates would continue in a more

limited way as a transitional measure.

Births and Deaths Provisions for the production of short birth certificates. No. There would be alternative methods of No. Access to registration records would continue.

Registration Act 1953 identifying and accessing registration records. The

S33 issuing of certificates would continue in a more

limited way as a transitional measure.

Births and Deaths Entry in register as evidence of birth or death – consequential amendments; No. No necessary protection would be removed. No. No rights or freedoms would be affected.

Registration Act 1953 overall reduction in burden due to package of civil registration reform.

S34

Marriage Act 1949 Requirement on various individuals to allow searches to be made in marriage No. There would be alternative methods for No. Access to registration records would continue.

S63 (1)–(2) registers in their keeping and to issue certificates. searching and accessing registration information.

The issuing of certificates would continue in a more

limited way as a transitional measure.

Marriage Act 1949 Requirement on superintendent registrars to produce indexes to the records No. There would be alternative methods of No. Those requiring access to registration records would

S64 (1) they hold and on the Registrar General to supply suitable forms for so doing. identifying registration records. continue to have it.









Tables of Burdens

Chapter 6 Privacy and access to registration records









Tables of Burdens

6.4 Access

Burdens removed or reduced

Legislation Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any necessary Would the proposal prevent anyone exercising a right

protection? or freedom?







Marriage Act 1949 Provisions to allow searching of registers held by superintendent registrars and No. There would be alternative methods of No. Those requiring access to registration records would

S64 (2) the purchase of certificates. searching records and accessing the information. continue to have it.

The issuing of certificates would continue in a more

limited way as a transitional measure.

Marriage Act 1949 Requirement on the Registrar General to produce indexes to the marriage No. There would be alternative methods of No. Those requiring access to registration records would

S65 (1)–(2) records he holds; provisions to allow searching of the indexes and the purchase searching records and accessing the information. continue to have it.

of certificates. The issuing of certificates would continue in a more

limited way as a transitional measure.



Marriage Act 1949 Requirement to seal or stamp marriage certificates with GRO seal and marriage No. No necessary protection would be removed. No. No rights or freedoms would be affected.

S65 (3) certificates as evidence of the event- overall reduction in burden due to package

of civil registration reform.









Annex A

231

232







Chapter 6 Privacy and access to registration records









Annex A

6.4 Access

Proposals introducing burdens

Proposals Would the Would the Would the proposal Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose proposal remove prevent anyone benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a any necessary from exercising a between the interests RRO to be made?

burden? protection? right or freedom? of those affected and

the public?

Restricting access to The proposals No. Registration The proposals would Yes. The benefits will include increased protection for Yes. The proposals will Yes. We consider the introduction of the access

some information in would introduce a information would limit the rights and the individual, and will help to reduce the potential streamline procedures framework combined with the removal of

modern registration burden on users of continue to be used freedoms of some for fraud. They will also continue to provide access to and services and reduce certificates to make accessing registration

records; provisions registration for obtaining people to access the modern registration records. the costs to individuals records less burdensome overall. It makes best

specifying who can information and on services and full record. This is and the public purse. use of information technology and replaces an

access restricted the Registrar benefits. The necessary to protect They will also continue out of date system.

information and General and proposals will privacy and prevent to allow general access

under what registration staff increase the fraud. With the to modern registration

conditions. who would have to protection afforded move to an records and more

apply them. to those individuals electronic system, specific access where

less than 100 years this is not a freedom there is a genuine need.

of age and their they can expect to

families. continue to exercise.

Requirement to This is a new No. The proposals No. The proposals Yes. The proposals will continue to allow access to Yes. The proposals Does not remove a burden. However, we

make available burden on the will deliver will continue to modern registration records to those who require it. balance the interests of consider that the introduction of this burden is

restricted Registrar General increased make available The benefit is a system that balances openness with those named in the necessary to protect the privacy of those named

information where and registration protection to those modern registration privacy and that reduces the potential for fraud. records, those who use in the records and their family and to protect

consent has been authorities, who named in the records to those who the records and those the public purse against fraud.

given and to confirm will need to records and their require it. who administer the

the entitlement of confirm entitlement family by system. The use of

those wanting to and release the controlling who technology will reduce

access it. information, and accesses the burdens and help to

on those wanting to information about control access.

access the them.

information, who

will have to prove

their entitlement.

Obtaining consent This is a new No. Registration Organisations with a Yes. The proposals would result in cost and efficiency Yes. The proposal would Yes. Obtaining consent is likely to be quicker

to access restricted burden on those information would genuine need to savings to organisations and the public. They will also help to ensure that only and easier than the current system of handling

information in organisations who continue to be access all registration help to reduce the potential for fraud. those entitled to access paper documents.

modern registration need to obtain available for information would the restricted

records. consent to access obtaining services continue to have information are able to

the restricted and benefits. such access. do so. It would also

information. Instead of protect the privacy of

obtaining copies of the individual and is in









Tables of Burdens

certificates, the wider public

organisations interest.

would obtain

consent to access

the restricted

information on the

central database.

Chapter 6 Privacy and access to registration records









Tables of Burdens

6.4 Access

Proposals introducing burdens

Proposals Would the Would the Would the proposal Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose proposal remove prevent anyone benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a any necessary from exercising a between the interests RRO to be made?

burden? protection? right or freedom? of those affected and

the public?

Giving consent for This would be a No. Registration No. No one would Yes. The burden on individuals would be less than at Yes. The proposals will Yes. Giving consent is likely to be quicker and

restricted new burden on information would be prevented from present. The benefits will include faster, more reduce the costs to the easier than the current system of providing

information to be individuals and continue to be used exercising any right efficient services for the public and cost savings. public purse and to paper documents.

accessed. their families/ for obtaining or freedom. individuals significantly.

representatives. services and

benefits. Instead of

supplying copies of

certificates,

individuals would

give consent for

information about

them to be

accessed.

The introduction of A new burden No. Establishing No. No one would Yes. The burden on organisations of applying to Yes. The proposals will Yes. We consider that the introduction of

Authorised Users for would be placed on Authorised Users be prevented from become Authorised Users will be minimal. The result in an overall Authorised Users would make the overall

the purposes of the Registrar would not remove exercising any right benefit would be having a facility for accessing simplification of process of accessing large volumes of

access. General who would any necessary or freedom. Those registration information. The burden on the Registrar processes for major users registration records much simpler and quicker.

approve these users. protection as these will a genuine General is proportionate to the wider benefits that of registration

A new burden Users would be entitlement to access will result in terms of security. information.

would be placed on required to abide registration

those people and by the access information would

organisations framework and to continue to be able

applying to become ensure their to do so.

Authorised Users. entitlement to

access registration

information.









Annex A

233

234







Chapter 6 Privacy and access to registration records









Annex A

6.4 Access

Proposals introducing burdens

Proposals Would the Would the Would the proposal Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose proposal remove prevent anyone benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a any necessary from exercising a between the interests RRO to be made?

burden? protection? right or freedom? of those affected and

the public?

Authorised Users to This would be a No. The proposal No. No one would Yes. The burden on Authorised Users would be small Yes. The proposals will Does not remove a burden but ensures the

maintain accurate new burden on would ensure the be prevented from and is in line with good practice. The benefits would reduce the costs to the security of registration information and the

lists of operators. Authorised Users. security of the exercising any right be a secure system and the protection of registration public purse integrity of the system, which is in the broader

central database is or freedom. information. significantly. public interest.

not compromised.

Introduction of a fee This would be a No. The proposal No. No rights or Yes. The access fee will be less than the current cost of Yes. The proposal strikes We consider that the overall package of benefits

for accessing records burden on the will not remove freedoms will be a certificate. In turn, users of the database will benefit a fair balance between and the overall reduction in burdens make it

on the central Registrar General any necessary affected. from improved response times, better searching the interests of users of desirable for the RRO to be made.

database. Fee to be and registration protection. The facilities and flexibility about how and when they registration records,

set out in authorities, that charge for accessing access records. those who administer

subordinate would collect the the central database the system and the

provisions to the fee, and on those will replace the public purse that will

order. accessing the existing fee for bear the cost.

database, who purchasing

would be required certificates. It is

to pay it. estimated that the

charge would be

less than the cost of

a certificate.

Offence of This would be a No. The proposals No. No one will be Yes. The benefit will be a more secure system, the Yes. The proposals will Does not remove a burden but ensures the

deliberately new burden on the would increase the prevented from reduction in fraud and the protection of individuals. protect individuals and security of registration information and the

tampering with or Registrar General protection to the exercising any right the public purse and is integrity of the system.

damaging the central and registration records, or freedom. in the public interest.

database or records authorities, who individuals,

it contains. would be required organisations and

to provide the public purse.

safeguards and

prevent misuse.

Introduce an offence This would be a No. The proposal No. No one would Yes. Regulating access to the restricted information is Yes. The proposals will Does not remove a burden but ensures the

of accessing a record new burden on would ensure the be prevented from necessary to protect individuals and registration reduce the costs to the security of registration information and the

where consent has those accessing security of the exercising any right information. The benefits will be a more secure public purse integrity of the system, which is in the broader

been refused or registration records. central database is or freedom. system. significantly from the public interest.

withheld. not compromised. reduction in fraud and

will protect individuals.









Tables of Burdens

Chapter 6 Privacy and access to registration records









Tables of Burdens

6.4 Access

Proposals introducing burdens

Proposals Would the Would the Would the proposal Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose proposal remove prevent anyone benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a any necessary from exercising a between the interests RRO to be made?

burden? protection? right or freedom? of those affected and

the public?

Provision for the The proposal would No. The proposal No. No one would Yes. Regulating access to registration information is Yes. The proposal will Does not remove a burden but ensures the

Registrar General to be a new burden on will help to be prevented from necessary to protect individuals and the information. balance the interest of security of registration information and the

withdraw access to the Registrar safeguard the exercising a right or The benefits would be a more secure system and those affected and the integrity of the system, which is in the broader

the database in cases General. security of freedom they could increased protection. public. A secure system public interest.

of non-compliance registration reasonably expect to is in the interest of all

with the access information. do. users of registration.

framework.

To produce paper The proposal would No. The first paper No. The proposal Yes. The benefits will be accurate records and the Yes. The proposals are Does not remove a burden but ensures that

copies showing introduce a burden copy issued at the will not prevent protection of the public by the introduction of a in the public interest. those registering events (or the couple in the

information on the Registrar time of remote anyone from standard service for a statutory fee. case of marriages) can obtain a paper copy in

recorded at the time General and registration will be exercising a right or order to check the information recorded. It also

of registration. registration free and will allow freedom. ensures the public are able to obtain standard

Provision to charge a authorities who the person paper copies for a set national fee.

statutory fee in would produce the registering the

certain paper copies and on event, or the

circumstances for users of registration couple in the case

paper copies. Fees to services who would of marriage, to

be set out in pay for all but the check the

subordinate first paper copy information. Being

provisions to the issued at the time of able to obtain a

order. remote registration standard paper

and at the copy of an event

registration of for a standard fee

marriages. from any

registration

authority will

protect the public

and other users.

Bringing the issue

of paper copies in

line with the access

framework will also

ensure their

protection.

The facility to This would be a No. This will be a No. The proposal Yes. The proposals will introduce choice and will give Yes. The proposals are Does not remove a burden but allows

produce elaborate new burden on the discretionary will protect the registration authorities and the Registrar General in line with local registration authorities to extend the services

documents for a Registrar General service offered to rights and freedoms opportunities to extend the services they offer. authority well being they offer to their customers and allows

discretionary fee. and registration the public. The of registration powers. customers more choice.

authorities. issue of documents authorities to

will be in line with develop their









Annex A

the overall access services.

framework.

235

236

Chapter 6 Privacy and access to registration records

6.5 Data sharing and data transfer









Annex A

Burdens removed or reduced

Legislation Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any necessary Would the proposal prevent anyone exercising a right

protection? or freedom?

Births and Deaths Burdens associated with releasing information under the current legal No necessary protection would be removed. Access No. No one would be prevented for exercising a right or

Registration Act 1953, framework. See section on access and chapter 5 on ‘through life’ records. to registration records would continue. freedom they may reasonable expect to continue.

various sections. Registration records would continue to be used for

obtaining services and benefits.

Marriage Act 1949, Burdens associated with releasing information under the current legal No necessary protection would be removed. Access No. No one would be prevented for exercising a right or

various sections. framework. See section on access and chapter 5 on ‘through life’ records. to registration records would continue. freedom they may reasonable expect to continue.

Registration records would continue to be used for

obtaining services and benefits.









Proposals introducing burdens

Proposals Would the Would the proposal Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose remove any proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a necessary anyone from between the interests RRO to be made?

burden? protection? exercising a right of those affected and

or freedom? the public?

Provisions allowing This would be a No. The framework No. No one would Yes. The benefits include improved, more reactive and Yes. The proposals will The proposals will remove administrative

the automatic new burden on the for data sharing will be prevented from joined up services. The system would produce the ensure the accurate burdens from individuals and organisations and

notification of Registrar General ensure information exercising any right information required for data sharing. payment of benefits, help to deliver joined-up and streamlined

registration and registration is only used where or freedom. which will protect the Government services.

information. authorities. there is provision to public purse. They will

do so and will also improve the quality

protect the of the information and

individual. help to reduce fraud.









Tables of Burdens

Tables of Burdens

Chapter 6 Privacy and access to registration records

6.6 Historic records

Burdens removed or reduced

Legislation Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any necessary Would the proposal prevent anyone exercising a right

protection? or freedom?

Births and Deaths See Access table (6.4) for details of burdens removed or reduced in relation to No. There would be alternative methods of No. Those requiring access to registration records would

Registration Act 1953, the production of indexes and the issue of certificates. identifying registration records. continue to have it.

various sections

Marriage Act 1949, See Access table (6.4) for details of burdens removed or reduced in relation to No. There would be alternative methods of No. Those requiring access to registration records would

various sections the production of indexes and the issue of certificates. identifying registration records. continue to have it.





Proposals introducing burdens

Proposals Would the Would the Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose proposal remove proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a any necessary anyone from between the interests of RRO to be made?

burden? protection? exercising a right those affected and the

or freedom? public?

Requirement to There would be a No. The proposals No. The proposals Yes. Users would benefit from increased flexibility Yes. The proposals would Yes. We consider that the proposals will reduce

make available burden on the will protect the will result in and improved access to historic records as well as enhance the availability burdens on both the providers and users of

historic records on Registrar General majority of improvements to financial savings from not having to purchase of these records while historic registration information. They allow for

the 100th and registration individuals and the rights and certificates. The burden on those making the records significantly reducing the the full use of modern technology.

anniversary of the authorities to make their families. The freedoms of users of available would be less than at present and would costs to users and the

birth of the subject historic records release of a small historic registration reduce over time as records are captured public purse.

(elder spouse, in the available and pass amount of historic records. electronically.

case of marriages). them over for information for

computerisation. living centenarians

will not adversely

affect their overall

protection.

Similarly, the

amount of

additional historic

information that

would be released

about the younger

spouse would not

significantly affect

their protection.

Releasing of This would be a The proposals No. The proposals Yes. The proposal would make available a new source Yes. The proposal would Would not remove a burden but the benefits

statistical new burden on the would not would result in of information. be in line with the move that would result would make it desirable for the

information for Registrar General. significantly affect improvements to to greater openness and RRO to be made.

historic records. the protection the rights and would be in the wider









Annex A

afforded to the freedoms of users of public interest.

majority of historic registration

individuals and records.

their families.

237

238







Chapter 7 The Registers









Annex A

7.3 Existing registers

Burdens removed or reduced

Legislation Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any necessary Would the proposal prevent anyone exercising a right

protection? or freedom?



Births and Deaths Requirement on Registrar General to provide registers. Also see chapter on No. There will be alternative arrangements for the No. The registration of events will also continue.

Registration Act 1953, registration of births, still-births and deaths. registration of life events.

S25

Births and Deaths Requirement for registrars to make and deliver copies of registrations to No. There will be alternative provisions for the No. The registration of events will continue.

Registration Act 1953, superintendent registrars and for the latter to verify these. registration of life events.

S26

Births and Deaths Requirement for superintendent registrars to deliver quarterly certified copies No. There will be alternative provisions for the No. The registration of events will continue.

Registration Act 1953, for their area to the Registrar General. registration of life events.

S27

Births and Deaths Requirement for registrars to keep safe registers in their possession and for No. There will be alternative provisions for the No. The registration of events will continue.

Registration Act 1953, depositing filled registers of still-births with the Registrar General. registration of life events and the safekeeping of

S28(1)-(3) records.

Births and Deaths Requirement on the Registrar General to keep registers in his possession in the No. There will be alternative provisions to ensure the No.

Registration Act 1953, way he sees fit. long-term preservation of registration records.

S28(4)

Births and Deaths See Access table for details of burdens removed in relation to the creation of No. There will be alternative ways of identifying and No.

Registration Act 1953, indexes and the issue of certificates. accessing registration records.

S30-S33

Marriage Act 1949, Requirement for notice of marriage to be recorded in marriage notice book. No. Marriage notices will be recorded on the central No. The system for giving notice will continue.

S27(4) Also see chapter on Marriages. database.

Marriage Act 1949, S54 Requirement on Registrar General to supply registers for the registration of No. There will be alternative arrangements for the No. The registration of events will also continue.

marriages. Also see chapter on Marriages. registration of life events.

Marriage Act 1949, S57 Requirement for holders of marriage registers to make and deliver to the No. There will be arrangements in place for the No. The registration of events will continue.

superintendent registrar of the area copies of registrations and for the latter to long-term preservation of registration records and

verify these. for the electronic capture of these.

Marriage Act 1949, Requirement for superintendent registrars to deliver quarterly certified copies No. There will be alternative provisions for the No. The registration of events will continue.

S58 (1) for their area to the Registrar General. registration of life events.

Marriage Act 1949, Requirement on the Registrar General to keep registers in his possession in the No. There will be alternative provisions to ensure the No.

S58(2) way he sees fit. long-term preservation of registration records.

Marriage Act 1949, S59 Requirements for holders of marriage registers to keep these safely until they are No. There will be alternative provisions for the No. The registration of events will continue.

filled. registration of life events and the safekeeping of

records.









Tables of Burdens

Chapter 7 The Registers









Tables of Burdens

7.3 Existing registers

Burdens removed or reduced

Legislation Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any necessary Would the proposal prevent anyone exercising a right

protection? or freedom?

Marriage Act 1949, S60 Provisions for the handling of filled marriage registers. No. There will be alternative arrangements in place No.

for the long-term preservation of registration

records.

Marriage Act 1949, S62 Provisions for depositing marriage registers from churches or chapels that stop No. The registration of marriages will continue and No.

being used for the solemnization of marriages. Also see chapter on Marriages. there will be alternative arrangements in place for

the preservation of registration records.

Marriage Act 1949, See Access table for details of burdens removed in relation to the creation of No. There will be alternative ways of identifying and No.

S63–S65 indexes and the issue of certificates. accessing registration records.

Registration Service Act Requirement for local authorities to provide and maintain a register office, No. There will be alternative arrangements in place No.

1953, S10(1) including a fireproof repository. for the long-term preservation of registration

records.

Registration Service Act Requirement on Registrar General to provide fire-resisting boxes for registrars No. There will be alternative provisions for the No. Registration records will continue to be made

1953, S12 to hold their registers. registration of life events and the safeguarding of available. The registration of events will also continue.

these.









Annex A

239

240







Chapter 7 The Registers









Annex A

7.3 Existing registers

Proposals introducing burdens

Proposals Would the Would the Would the proposal Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose proposal remove prevent anyone benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a any necessary from exercising a between the interests RRO to be made?

burden? protection? right or freedom? of those affected and

the public?

Local authorities A new burden No. The proposal No. Registration Yes. Local authorities are already responsible for Yes. The preservation of Yes. The proposal will give local authorities

will be responsible would be placed on would ensure the records would providing strong-rooms for keeping registers. This registration records is flexibility to deal with these registers and reduce

for the registers in local authorities long-term continue to be proposal would rationalise the current situation and beneficial to individuals the overall burden on them.

their area. who would become preservation of available. give them flexibility over how they achieve it. and society. Overall, it

responsible for the existing registers. is likely to result in a

registers in their saving to the public

area. purse.



Requirement on This will be a new No. The No. Yes. Local authorities already keep marriage notice Yes. The preservation of Does not remove a burden but the proposals

local authorities to burden on local requirement to give books. The provisions would allow them to marriage notice books is will give local authorities flexibility to deal with

make long-term authorities to make notice of marriage rationalise the archival space they manage. The beneficial to individuals the records in their possession.

arrangements for suitable will continue. The proposal would ensure that a new and important and society.

the preservation of arrangements. proposals will source of information was made available and

marriage notice ensure the long- preserved.

books. term preservation

of the marriage

notice books and

will enhance the

availability of these

records.



Religious bodies will This proposal will No. The proposal No. The proposals Yes. Religious bodies are already required to manage Yes. The preservation of Yes. We consider that the proposal would reduce

be able to decide give religious bodies would ensure the will give religious their registers in a prescribed manner. The proposal registration records is the overall burden on religious bodies and

how they manage new freedoms to long-term bodies new would remove the constraints and give them more beneficial to individuals would give them increased flexibility and choice.

their archive of manage the archive preservation of freedoms. choice. and society.

marriage registers. of marriage registers existing registers. Registration records

in their custody. would continue to

be available.

Religious bodies

would keep the

registers in their

custody.









Tables of Burdens

Chapter 7 The Registers









Tables of Burdens

7.3 Existing registers

Proposals introducing burdens

Proposals Would the Would the Would the proposal Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose proposal remove prevent anyone benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a any necessary from exercising a between the interests RRO to be made?

burden? protection? right or freedom? of those affected and

the public?

Requirement to There would be an No. Registration The proposals would Yes. The benefits of having a secure system for Yes. The proposal will This proposal does not remove or reduce a

apply access additional burden information would limit the rights and accessing registration information and applying that protect individuals and burden but would strengthen the protection of

framework to on holders of continue to be used freedoms of some consistently we believe outweighs the introduction of the public purse by individual’s privacy and the security of

marriage registers marriage registers, for obtaining people to access the this burden. There will be arrangements in place to helping to reduce the registration information.

held outside the including archivists services and full record. This is minimise this burden. fraudulent use of

registration service. to apply the access benefits. necessary to protect registration

framework. Controlling access privacy and prevent information.

to the restricted fraud.

information will

ensure people’s

privacy is protected

and the

information is

secure.



See Access table for details of the access framework and the burdens associated with it.









Annex A

241

242







Chapter 8 Overseas and other records









Annex A

8.2 and 8.3 Overseas and miscellaneous records

Burdens removed or reduced

Legislation Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any necessary Would the proposal prevent anyone exercising a right

protection? or freedom?

Various Acts. See Access table for details of burdens removed or reduced in relation to the No. There would be alternative methods of No. Those requiring access to registration records would

production of indexes and the issue of certificates. identifying registration records. The issuing of continue to have it.

certificates would continue in a more limited way as

a transitional measure.







8.2 and 8.3 Overseas and miscellaneous records

Proposals introducing burdens

Proposals Would the Would the proposal Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose remove any proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a necessary anyone from between the interests of RRO to be made?

burden? protection? exercising a right those affected and the

or freedom? public?

British registering A new burden No. The proposals The proposals Yes. The proposals will ensure that access to all Yes. The proposals will Does not remove a burden. However, we

authorities to apply would be placed on will continue to would limit the registration records is consistent. protect the privacy of consider the introduction of these proposals to

the access British registering allow for the rights and individuals, while be desirable in terms of the protection they will

framework to authorities to registration of events freedoms of some maintaining the public afford to individuals and the potential reduction

records they hold. ensure only those overseas for British people to access interest in the in fraud.

entitled to access citizens, and for the full record. information.

records do so. access to those This is necessary

records. to protect privacy

and prevent fraud.

With the move to

an electronic

system, this is not

a freedom they can

expect to continue

to exercise.

New framework for See Access table for

accessing details of burdens.

registration records.

Provisions for See ‘Through life’

linking records. records table for

details of burdens.









Tables of Burdens

Chapter 8 Overseas and other records









Tables of Burdens

8.2 and 8.3 Overseas and miscellaneous records

Proposals introducing burdens

Proposals Would the Would the proposal Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose remove any proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a necessary anyone from between the interests of RRO to be made?

burden? protection? exercising a right those affected and the

or freedom? public?

Provisions for data See table on Data

sharing. Sharing and Data

Transfer for details

of burdens.

Provisions for New burdens No. The proposals No. There are no Yes. The inconvenience to the couple would be Yes. There will be The benefits that will result from the proposals

depositing would be placed on will extend existing rights or freedoms minimal. The benefits would include easier negligible cost to the for those people marrying abroad make the

documents for the couple protection to British at issue. subsequent access to marriage documents. public purse from the proposals desirable.

marriages in depositing marriage citizens who marry proposals. The cost to

Commonwealth documents and in Commonwealth the couple of lodging

countries and for paying the fee, and countries. documents will be

charging a fee for so on the Registrar balanced by other

doing. Fees to be set General for savings in the long term.

out in subordinate handling the

provisions to the applications.

order.

Provisions to allow See table on

other overseas ‘Through Life’

records to be Records for details

included on central of burdens.

database.









Annex A

243

244







Chapter 9 Statistics









Annex A

9.1-9.3 Statistical information obtained from registration

Burdens removed or reduced

Legislation Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any necessary Would the proposal prevent anyone exercising a right

protection? or freedom?

Population (Statistics) Specifies in the Schedule to the Act the particulars to be given to a registration No: it is proposed to continue to specify the No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

Act 1938 S1 officer. particulars to be given but to include them in the

subordinate provisions to the Order.

Population (Statistics) No disclosure of information obtained under this Act. No: there would continue to be safeguards for the No: there are no rights or freedoms at issue.

Act 1938 S4(2) disclosure of information obtained under this Act.

A new more flexible framework would continue to

ensure that privacy was protected where necessary

and appropriate.









Tables of Burdens

Chapter 9 Statistics









Tables of Burdens

9.1-9.3 Statistical information obtained from registration

Proposals introducing burdens

Proposals Would the Would the Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose proposal remove proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a any necessary anyone from between the interests RRO to be made?

burden? protection? exercising a right of those affected and

or freedom? the public?

Registrar General It would be a new No: the Registrar No: there are no Yes: the Registrar General will only test the collection Yes: it will enable the Yes: the provisions balance the burden on

would be able to test burden on the General would only rights or freedoms of new information where there is a consensus that it collection of new citizens who would have to give this

the collection of Registrar General. test the collection at issue. will be of value for statistics and research and will not information to be tested information, the ability to test the collection of

new information. For members of the of new information represent an unreasonable burden on the citizen. to ascertain public new information, the interests of the registration

public participating under the same acceptability and to be service who would test the collection and the

in the tests, it legal framework as evaluated for use in interests of statisticians and researchers who

would also be a current information statistics and research. produce and analyse statistics on the public’s

burden to give is collected. behalf.

additional

information. There

would be no legal

obligation to give

such information if

it was a test.

Registrar General It would be a new No: Parliament No: there are no Yes: the Registrar General will only propose the Yes: the proposal strikes Yes: the burdens created on the Registrar

would have the burden on the would ensure that rights or freedoms collection of new information where it is proved that a fair balance between General, citizens and the registration service are

power, subject to the Registrar General. the Registrar at issue. it will be of value for statistics and research and will the burden on citizens proportionate to the benefits that would result

affirmative He would only General exercised not represent an unreasonable burden on the citizen. who would have to give from the ability to collect new information and

resolution propose to specify this power in a the information, the the new information collected.

procedure, to specify new information reasonable manner. ‘public good’ of having

in subordinate once its collection relevant and timely

provisions the had been tested and statistics, the interests of

information to be evaluated. the registration service

collected. who would have to

collect the information

and the interests of

statisticians and

researchers who produce

and analyse statistics on

the public’s behalf.

Registrar General It would reduce the No: it would not be No: there are no Yes; the Registrar General and the NHS, subject to Yes: a citizen would be Yes: the proposal would provide benefits for the

to have powers to burden on the possible to share rights or freedoms appropriate consent, would be able to share asked to consent to the State and for the citizen. It would allow the

use other citizen of having to administrative at issue. administrative information that will improve the sharing of administrative sharing of administrative information, subject to

administrative provide the same information unless effectiveness of their respective procedures. information and could appropriate consent, that will improve service

sources of administrative there was refuse to do so. In which delivery.

information, information to the appropriate consent case he or she would

particularly the NHS and the to do so. have to provide the

NHS, subject to registration service. information twice.

appropriate consent.









Annex A

245

246







Chapter 10 Organisation









Annex A

10.1 Organisation

Burdens removed or reduced

Legislation Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any necessary Would the proposal prevent anyone exercising a right or

protection? freedom?

RSA S5(1) and In each non metropolitan county and metropolitan district there shall be one These specific burdens are replaced by the general No.

RSA S5(2) or more districts and in every district there shall one or more sub-districts. duty on the local registration authority to provide

Each district/sub-district shall have a superintendent srgistrar and each sub- the face to face service.

district shall have registrars of births and deaths.

RSA S6(1) The Register General’s responsibility to appoint (where local authorities fail to No. The protection is provided by the general duty No, the provision enables local authorities to manage the

RSA S7(1) do so), approve or remove: on local authority to provide the ‘face to face’ service in a more effective cohesive way.

RSA S8(1) • superintendent registrars service. There would be an implied duty to make

• registrars of births and deaths proper arrangements for the discharge of

• additional registrars of marriages registration duties at all times.

• deputy superintendent registrars

• deputy registrars of birth and deaths

• deputy registrars of marriages

Local authorities required to appoint to these specific posts.

RSA S9 The proper officer of a local authority has responsibilities under the RSA 1953 No. The protection is provided by the general duty

to appoint: on local authority to provide the ‘face to face’

• Interim superintendent registrars service. There would be an implied duty to make

• Interim registrar of births and deaths proper arrangements for the discharge of

• Interim deputies to the above posts registration duties at all times.



RSA S18 Burdens arising under arrangements relating to temporary provisions for non- No. There are no statutory posts of non-salaried No.

salaried officers will be removed. officers. This was a transitional provision.

RSA S13 The burden on the local authority to appoint a proper officer will be removed. No. The local authority will have to make proper No.

The burden on the proper officer of discharging his duties will be removed. arrangements to discharge its duty to provide a ‘face

The duties are: to face’ registration service including suitable

•RSA 9(1&2) appoint Interim Officers management arrangements.

•RSA 13(2)(h) powers to fix hours, distribution of business and transfer of post

holders within or between districts

•RSA 13(3)(b) powers conferred by Local authority under a local scheme

•RSA 20 (b) duties prescribed by Registrar General regulation

RSA S13 Requirement to prepare local registration service schemes and to submit local No. These arrangements allowed the Minister to be Local authority will have more freedom and control on the

RSA S14 schemes for approval will be removed. sure that proper arrangements had been made. delivery of the service

Local authorities will have a direct legal

responsibility to deliver the service. There will still

be controls, inspection and proportionate

intervention powers. So this necessary protection

(of preparing schemes) will be replaced by a more









Tables of Burdens

appropriate regime.

Chapter 10 Organisation









Tables of Burdens

10.1 Organisation

Burdens removed or reduced

Legislation Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any necessary Would the proposal prevent anyone exercising a right

protection? or freedom?

RSA S10–11 Requirement for local authority to provide accommodation for register offices and No. This specific duty is replaced by the general The local authority will be able to manage its property

sub districts removed. duty as regards service provision, where it is implied more flexibly to meet customers needs.

that accommodation will be needed to discharge the

face to face service.

RSA S12 Requirement on Registrar General to provide register boxes to registrars. This will be removed as a legal burden. The No.

Registrar General will continue to provide boxes to

local authorities while they are needed. In time they

will not be needed.









Annex A

247

248







Chapter 10 Organisation









Annex A

10.1 Organisation

Proposals introducing burdens

Proposals Would the Would the proposal Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose remove any proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a necessary anyone from between the interests of RRO to be made?

burden? protection? exercising a right those affected and the

or freedom? public?

Registrar General to The Register No. It increases the No. Yes. Yes. Yes.

provide national call General and his access channels for

centre and Internet staff would have registration service

access. the burden of the informants.

responsibility to

set-up and

maintain the

national database

and to provide a

national call centre.

Local authorities to Local authorities No. It is a more No. Yes. Yes. Yes.

provided face to face would have the appropriate

services. burden of the duty framework for

to provide the face delivering assured

to face service and registration services

of meeting the suitable for local

minimum communities.

standards.

Staff to have proper Local authorities No – Staff would get No. Yes. Yes. Yes.

employment would have the the benefits accruing

contracts. burden of directly from a normal

employing staff to employment

deliver the service, contract as opposed

and of managing to formal post

those staff holder status that

including all does not allow

disciplinary remedies such as

matters. industrial tribunals.

Local authorities to It would be a No. Many No. Yes. Yes. Yes.

provide/signpost burden on local Authorities will

discretionary authorities. prefer to be able to

services. provide a wider

range of services.









Tables of Burdens

Tables of Burdens

Chapter 11 Finance and charges

11.1 Finance and charges

Burdens removed or reduced

Legislation Burdens imposed by legislation Would the proposal remove any necessary Would the proposal prevent anyone exercising a right

protection? or freedom?

RSA S15 and S16 Requirements in relation to accounting and giving up of books and records on As currently enacted these burdens fall on statutory No.

cessation of office. postholders. As these will become local authority

employees these burdens will no longer be

appropriate. In time all books and registers will be

given up and the issue does not arise with the new

entries that are recorded in the database. Local

authorities are under existing obligations in relation

to accounting and banking and additional burdens

need to be placed in this regard.







11.1 Finance and charges

Proposals introducing burdens

Proposals Would the Would the Would the Would the new burden be proportionate to the Would the proposal Would the extent to which the order removes

proposal impose proposal remove proposal prevent benefit? strike a fair balance or reduces burdens make it desirable for the

or remove a any necessary anyone from between the interests of RRO to be made?

burden? protection? exercising a right those affected and the

or freedom? public?



Local authorities to It would be a No. This is not an No. Yes. Yes. Yes.

provide accounting burden on local onerous burden –

data to the Registrar authorities so that local authority

General. the requirements of accounting systems

the Public should be able to

Expenditure and accommodate this

Receipts Act 1968 requirement.

could be met by

the Registrar

General in setting

prices for services

provided under

that Act.









Annex A

249

Annex B List of organisations consulted









Annex B

List of organisations consulted



All County Councils in England and Wales British Bankers’ Association



All Metropolitan Councils in England and Wales British Chamber of Commerce



All Unitary Authorities in England and Wales British Hospitality Association



All Registration Officers in England and Wales British Humanist Association



All Strategic Health Authorities in England British Juvenile and Family Courts Society



All Local Health Boards in Wales British Medical Association



Active Media Building Societies Association



Adoption UK Cefn



Age Concern Central Council of Magistrates’ Courts Committees



Age Concern Cymru Chartered Institute for Public Finance and Accountancy



All Wales Ethnic Minority Association Children Society



Association of British Insurers Churches Main Committee



Association of Burial Authorities Church in Wales



Association of Chief Archivists in Local Government (ACALG) Church of England Archbishops’ Council



Association of Family Court Welfare Officers Civil Ceremonies Ltd



Association for Public Service Excellence Commission for Health Improvement



Association of Genealogists and Researchers in Archives Commission for Racial Equality in Wales



Association of Justices’ Chief Executives Compassionate Friends



Association of Lawyers for Children Consideration of Burial Authorities (CBA)



Associations of Magisterial Officers Confederation of Indian Organisations



Baptist Union of Great Britain Consumer Association



Bar Council Coroners’ Officers Association



Board of Deputies of British Jews Coroner’s Society



British Association for Adoption & Fostering (BAAF) Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries

250

List of organisations consulted Annex B









Council of Mortgage Lenders Credit Industry Fraud Improvement and Development Agency

Avoidance Service

Institute of Burial and Cremation Administration (IBCA)

Cremation Society of Great Britain CRUSE

Institute of Consumer Affairs

Cymdeithas yr Iaith

Institute of Heraldic & Genealogical Studies

Cymuned

Institute of Population Registration

Direct Marketing (UK) Limited

Institute of Public Policy Research

Disability Wales

Inter-Faith Network for the UK

Employers’ Organisation

International Underwriting Association of London

Experian

Justice Clerks’ Society

Families Need Fathers

Law Centres Federation

Family History Monthly

Law Society

Family Law Bar Association

Legal Aid Practitioners’ Group

Family Tree Magazine

Liberal Jewish Synagogue

Family Welfare Association

Liberty

Federation of British Cremation Authorities

Lifecycle Marketing Limited

Federation of Family History Societies

Local Authority Co-ordinators for Regulatory Services

Federation of Small Businesses

Local Government Association

Federation of Small Businesses (Wales)

Local Government Information Unit

Financial Services Authority

Local Government Ombudsman

Foundation for Information Technology in Local

Government London Metropolitan Archive



Fraser & Fraser Magistrates Association



Free Churches Group Maternity Alliance



Gingerbread Methodist Church



Genealogical Society of Utah Mothers’ Union



GMB Muslim Council of Britain



Guild of One Name Studies National Association of Bereavement Services



Health Solutions Wales National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux



Hoopers National Association of Family Court Welfare Officers





251

Annex B List of organisations consulted









National Childbirth Trust Royal Statistical Society



National Consumer Council School of Health and Related Research



National Consumer Federation Small Business Service



National Council for One Parent Families Society of Archivists



National Council of Hindu Temples Society of County Treasurers



National Council on Archives Society of Genealogists



National Family and Parenting Institute Society of IT Management



National Family Mediation Society of Labour Lawyers



National Library of Wales Society of Public Information Networks



National Organisation for Counselling Adoptees and their Society of Registration Officers

Parents (NORCAP)

SOLACE

Natural Parents Network

Solicitors’ Family Law Association

National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit

Still-births and Neo-natal Deaths Society

National Society of Allied and Independent Funeral

Directors Stonewall Cymru



NCVCCO Strategic Health Authorities



Network of Sikh Organisations (UK) TGWU



Official Solicitor and Public Trustee Title Research



One Plus One Union of Muslim Organisations of the UK and Eire



Pensions Management Institute Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations



Public Health Observatories UNISON



REaD Group United Reform Church



Registry Trust University of Essex Data Archive



Relate Wales Women’s National Coalition



Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) Welsh Local Government Association



Restaurant Association Welsh Assembly Government



Roman Catholic Church West London Synagogue of British Jews



Rotary Womens Institute



Royal Mail





252

Regulatory reform proposals and orders: Parliamentary consideration Annex C









Annex C

Regulatory reform proposals and orders:

Parliamentary consideration

Introduction persons affected by the new burdens;

1. These reform proposals in relation to civil • whether an Order that imposes burdens is desirable in

registration will require changes to primary legislation in terms either of the burdens it removes or the other

order to give effect to them. The Minister could achieve benefits it brings;

these changes by introducing a Regulatory Reform Order • whether any parts of the proposed Order are being

under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. Regulatory Reform designated as ‘subordinate provisions’, allowing them to

Orders are subject to preliminary consultation and an be changed by less elaborate Parliamentary procedures

extended Parliamentary scrutiny (by Committees in each in the future;

House of Parliament) of any subsequently proposed Order. • what cost savings or increases are expected, and why;

On that basis, the Minister invites comments on these • what other benefits there will be from the proposals;

reform proposals in relation to civil registration as measures • details of the consultation process;

that might be carried forward by a Regulatory Reform • any representations received as a result of that

Order. consultation; and

• the changes made as a result.

Regulatory Reform Proposals

2. This consultation document on amending the 4. On the day the Minister lays the proposals and

statutory powers relating to civil registration has been report, the period for Parliamentary consideration begins. It

produced because the starting point for regulatory reform lasts for 60 days, excluding Parliamentary recesses of more

proposals is thorough and effective consultation with than four days. If you want a copy of the proposals and the

interested parties. In undertaking this preliminary Minister’s report, you will be able to get them either from

consultation, the Minister is expected to seek out actively the Government department concerned or by visiting the

the views of those concerned, including those who may be Cabinet Office’s website at www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/

adversely affected, and then to demonstrate to the Scrutiny regulation/act/index.htm.

Committees that he or she has addressed those concerns.

Parliamentary Scrutiny

3. Following the consultation exercise, when the 5. Both Houses of Parliament scrutinise regulatory

Minister lays proposals before Parliament under the reform proposals and draft orders. This is done by the

Regulatory Reform Act, he or she must also lay a report for Scrutiny Committees.

consideration by the Scrutiny Committees setting out a

summary of: 6. Standing Orders in the Commons stipulate that the

Committee there considers whether proposals:

• the burden imposed by the existing law;

• whether any of those burdens are proposed to be (a) appear to make an inappropriate use of delegated

removed or reduced; legislation;

• how the proposals otherwise further the other objects of (b) remove or reduce a burden or the authorisation or

the Regulatory Reform Act (re-enacting proportionate requirement of a burden;

burdens, introducing new but proportionate burdens, (c) continue any necessary protection;

removing inconsistencies and anomalies); (d) have been the subject of, and take appropriate account

• whether there is ‘necessary protection’ and how it is to of, adequate consultation;

be continued; (e) impose a charge on the public revenues or contain

• how any reasonable expectation of the exercise of rights provisions requiring payments to be made to the

or freedoms is affected (if at all) and how the exercise Exchequer or any government department or to any

can be continued; local or public authority in consideration of any licence

• how new burdens (if any) are both proportionate and, or consent or of any services to be rendered, or prescribe

taking the proposals as a whole, strike a fair balance the amount of any such charge or payment;

between the public interest and the interests of the (f ) purport to have retrospective effect;





253

Annex C Regulatory reform proposals and orders: Parliamentary consideration









(g) give rise to doubts whether they are intra vires; 11. The final draft order then has to be approved by

(h) require elucidation, are not written in plain English, or both Houses of Parliament before becoming law.

appear to be defectively drafted; or

(i) appear to be incompatible with any obligation resulting How To Make Your Views Known

from membership of the European Union. 12. Responding to this consultation document is your

(j) prevent any person from continuing to exercise any first and main opportunity to make your views known to

right or freedom which he might reasonably expect to the relevant department as part of the consultation process.

continue to exercise; You should send your views to the person named in the

(k) satisfy the conditions of proportionality between consultation document, in this case, Lorraine Cole, Civil

burdens and benefits set out in sections 1 and 3 of the Registration Review Consultation - see ‘Annex H How to

Act; respond’. When the Minister lays proposals before

(l) satisfy the test of desirability set out in section 3(2)(b) Parliament you are welcome to put your views before either

of the Act; or both of the Scrutiny Committees.

(m) have been the subject of, and take appropriate account

of, estimates of increases or reductions in costs or other 13. In the first instance, this should be in writing. The

benefits which may result from their implementation; Committees will normally decide on the basis of written

or submissions whether to take oral evidence.

(n) include provisions to be designated in the draft order as

subordinate provisions; and in the case of the latter 14. Your submission should be as concise as possible,

consideration the committee shall report its opinion and should focus on one or more of the criteria listed in

whether such a designation should be made, and to paragraph 6 above.

what parliamentary proceedings any subordinate

provisions orders should be subject. 15. The Scrutiny Committees appointed to scrutinise

Regulatory Reform Orders can be contacted at:

7. The Committee in the House of Lords will

consider each proposal in terms of similar criteria, although Delegated Powers and Deregulation and Regulatory

these are not laid down in Standing Orders. Deregulation Committee Reform Committee

House of Lords House of Commons

8. Each Committee might take oral or written London SW1A 0PW 7 Millbank

evidence to help it decide these matters, and each London SW1P 3JA

Committee could then be expected to report:

Tel: 020 7219 3103 Tel: 020 7219 2830/2833/2837

• whether the Minister should proceed to lay a draft order Fax: 020 7219 2571 Fax: 020 7219 2509

in the same terms as the original proposal, or E-mail: DPDC@ E-mail: Deregcom@

• whether amendment is necessary, or parliament.uk parliament.uk

• whether the order-making power should not be used

(for example, because of the significance or sensitivity of Non-disclosure of responses

the proposal). 16. Section 7 of the Act provides what should happen

when someone responding to the consultation exercise on a

Copies of Committee Reports, as Parliamentary papers, can proposed order requests that their response should not be

be obtained through HMSO. They are also made available disclosed.

on the Parliament website at www.parliament.uk.

17. The name of the person who has made

9. After the 60 days for Parliamentary consideration, representations will always be disclosed to Parliament. If you

the Minister can lay a draft order before both Houses, this ask for your representation not to be disclosed, the Minister

time for the approval of Parliament. should not disclose the content of that representation

without your express consent and, if the representation

10. Each of the Scrutiny Committees examines the relates to a third party, their consent too. Alternatively, the

draft order to see how far its views have been taken into Minister may disclose the content of the representation in

account. It might then report, within 15 sitting days, such a way as to preserve your anonymity and that of any

whether the draft order should be approved or not, and it third party involved.

would then be for the relevant House itself to take its final

decision. 18. The Scrutiny Committees may be given access on

request to the representations as originally submitted, as a









254

Regulatory reform proposals and orders: Parliamentary consideration Annex C









safeguard against improper influence being brought to bear

on Ministers in their formulation of regulatory reform

orders.



Information about third parties

19. If you give information about a third party which the

Minister believes may be damaging to the interests of that

third party, the Minister does not have to pass on such

information to Parliament if he or she does not believe it is

true or is unable to obtain the consent of the third party to

disclosure. This applies whether or not you ask for your

representation not to be disclosed



Regulatory Impact Unit

Cabinet Office

May 2001









255

Annex D The Cabinet Office Code of Practice on consulation









Annex D

The Cabinet Office Code of Practice on

consultation

The criteria in the Code of Practice on Consultation apply

to all United Kingdom national public consultations on the

basis of a document in electronic or printed form. They will

often be relevant to other sorts of consultation.



Though they have no legal force and cannot prevail over

statutory or other mandatory or external requirements (eg

under European Community law) they should otherwise

generally be regarded as binding on United Kingdom

Departments and their agencies unless Ministers conclude

that exceptional circumstances require a departure.



The criteria are reproduced below:



1. Timing of consultation should be built into the

planning process for a policy (including legislation) or

service from the start, so that it has the best prospect of

improving the proposals concerned, and so that

sufficient time is left for it at each stage.

2. It should be clear who is being consulted, about what

questions, in what timescale, and for what purpose.

3. A consultation document should be as simple and

concise as possible. It should include a summary, in two

pages at most, of the main questions it seeks views on.

It should make it as easy as possible for readers to

respond, make contact or complain.

4. Documents should be made widely available, with the

fullest use of electronic means (though not to the

exclusion of others), and effectively drawn to the

attention of all interested groups and individuals.

5. Sufficient time should be allowed for responses from all

groups with an interest. Twelve weeks should be the

standard minimum period for a consultation.

6. Responses should be carefully and open-mindedly

analysed, and the results made widely available, with an

account of the views expressed, and reasons for

decisions taken.

7. Departments should monitor and evaluate

consultations, designating a consultation co-ordinator

who will ensure that the lessons learned are

disseminated.



The complete Code is available on the Cabinet Office’s

website, at http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/servicefirst/

index/consultation.htm





256

Draft partial Regulatory Impact Assessment Annex E









Annex E

Draft partial Regulatory Impact

Assessment

1 Introduction changes discussed in this section are all enacted in the

This draft partial Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) Registration Service Act 1953 (RSA 1953). The main

supports and is being issued with the consultation paper on function of the Registrar General is to regulate the service

the proposed Draft Regulatory Reform (Registration of such that all events are recorded consistently, accurately and

Births, Deaths and Marriages) Order. It is divided into four promptly, and to ensure that the records are secured safely.

sections: Statutory post holders are appointed to carry out specifically

defined registration functions. These staff are paid by local

• Organisation and Finance. authorities but not employed by them. In fact they have no

• Births and Deaths. employer. The RSA 1953 establishes the statutory posts and

• Marriage. assigns duties to each role in a prescriptive manner.

• Records.

2.3.2 Local authorities have to:

Interested parties are asked to comment on the impact of

the proposed measures giving quantitative information • prepare a ‘local registration scheme’ (this provides

wherever possible. details of how the local service is to be organised and

provided within the local authority area);

2 Organisation and finance • provide accommodation;

• appoint staff; and

2.1 Purpose and intended effect of measure • appoint a ‘Proper Officer’ to regulate the local service.



2.2 Objective The scheme has to be approved by the Financial Secretary to

2.2.1 To modernise the organisation of the local the Treasury. The Registrar General makes regulations under

registration service in England and Wales by giving s20 of the Registration Service Act 1953 to regulate these

responsibility for the provision of face to face registration matters. Local authorities have no discretion as to what

services to unitary and county local authorities. services are provided or the charges made for them.



2.2.2 To regularise the employment position of statutory 2.3.3 The RSA 1953 provides sanctions where local

post holders (Superintendent Registrars, Registrars of Births, authorities do not provide accommodation, appoint staff or

Deaths and Marriages and Additional Registrars) by making where officers do not hand over records to their successors.

them local authority employees. Local authorities will be It is proposed that most of these are replaced with

able to manage the service more effectively and to integrate proportionate measures based on self-regulation, codes of

it with other locally provided services. practice or applying existing compliance regimes (such as

Best Value)

2.2.3 To establish a means of funding the local

registration service that secures accessible face-to-face 2.3.4 The existing management framework allows the

services and provides a basis for the likely shift in work as local authority no discretion as to how services are provided.

take-up of remote registration facilities increases. Customers have no choice as to where or how they register

life events. Statutory post holders do not enjoy the

2.2.4 To revise the compliance and control regime to protection of the full range of employment protection

minimise the use of legislative powers and promote self- measures because of their statutory post holder status.

regulation, supportive inspection together with necessary

and proportionate intervention powers. 2.4 Risk assessment

2.4.1 There are 172 registration authorities currently

2.3 Background administered as 349 registration districts. The cost of the

2.3.1 The registration service is headed by the Registrar local registration service is estimated at £70 million per year.

General under the provisions of the Registration Acts. The It is not known how many staff are employed partly because

of the split responsibilities but it is probably around 7,500.



257

Annex E Draft partial Regulatory Impact Assessment









2.4.2 Throughout the course of their lives all citizens will 2.5.3 Option 2 – Provide a national Registration Service

need to use registration services. It is hard to overestimate managed and provided by the GRO.

the importance of this vital service. The registration records

provide an important resource at an individual level in terms The existing relationship with local authorities works well.

of confirmation of identity and entitlement to the privileges Selecting this option would have lost that goodwill. It would

and duties for citizens. In aggregate they serve to define and have been expensive. It would have brought about the most

inform understanding of national characteristics. They profound realignment of responsibilities for little extra

provide an invaluable historic archive that is vital to benefit that can be achieved by the selected option.

historians, social researchers and genealogists.

The option would give the Registrar General total control of

2.4.4 The main risk arises from perpetuating a system the service but he would need to introduce a whole new

that relies on hand-written and copied records, a split bureaucratic organisation to manage a national service. It is

responsibility management framework and statutory post unlikely this could be economical or provide locally

holders who are unaccountable and denied the protection of accessible joined-up services. Although the existing statutory

modern employment legislation. In addition if the service post holders would benefit from this option as it would

were not to modernise it would be increasingly isolated and allow the regularisation of their employment position, it

anachronistic in a society driven by electronic data storage would bring the need to additionally transfer existing staff

and processing frameworks. working in registration services that are not statutory

postholders. It would place on the Registrar General the

2.4.5 Failure to implement the changes proposed in this significant burden of establishing a national infrastructure of

section would also impact on the implementation of the local offices and of managing that.

proposals throughout this document. These rely on the

provision of a national database maintained by the GRO 2.5.4 Option 3 – Provide a totally devolved service run

and populated with records captured by a locally provided by the local registration authorities.

face to face service and a remote registration service

provided on a national basis to national standards. It is not considered feasible to devolve the whole service.

Registration is a national service for good reason. The data

2.5 Options and benefits recorded needs to be recorded consistently and to a high

2.5.1 Objective – To modernise the organisation of the standard. It requires an infrastructure that can only be

local registration service in England and Wales by giving developed and managed effectively and economically on a

responsibility for the provision of face-to-face registration national basis.

services to unitary and county local authorities.

The role of the Registrar General in monitoring and

2.5.2 Option 1 – Do nothing. developing policy to deal with issues such as paternity,

access, marriage policy, adoptions can only be effective and

It is not a credible option to make no legislative changes. consistent on a national basis.

The changes to the organisation of the service facilitate the

achievement of the other objectives and are justified in their 2.5.5 Option 4 – Split the responsibility for providing

own right because of the improvement in effective the service between local authorities for face-to-face services

management and accountability introduced. and the GRO for remote services.



Local authorities can only legally do things that they have This option allows the local authorities to continue to

specific powers to do. To do nothing legislatively to put in provide a high quality service that they have shown they are

place the duty of face to face service provision would not be capable of. It addresses the anomalies in management

satisfactory. Because of the pressure on their resources local highlighted throughout this assessment. It allows the remote

authorities may not deliver this service if it was not services to be provided to a consistent national standard.

compulsory for them to do so. The remote services could not be provided economically or

effectively at the local level. Registration matters are

It would be possible to do nothing but this would frustrate complex and need to be dealt with professionally.

the regularisation of the employment status of registration

officers and any progress towards e-government and other The option allows local authorities to ‘join up’ registration

desirable service developments described elsewhere in the services with other customer facing services and provide

RIA. improved access. It allows development of the role of

registration in supporting the community and confirming

its sense of identity.





258

Draft partial Regulatory Impact Assessment Annex E









It facilitates the transfer of statutory post holders to ‘regular’ The present funding model is based on legal service delivery

employment status and does not disturb the role of non- arrangements that impose geographical constraints and is

statutory workers in the registration service. The users of the not responsive to shifts in demand. Once citizens are able to

service including those registering information and those choose how and where to access registration services this

accessing it are beneficiaries from the improved access to model will not deliver a reduction in public expenditure that

registering events and improved access to the information is expected to be a feature of electronic registration.

provided. Other government departments and insurance

companies benefit from the automated access to data and 2.5.11 Option 2 -– Funding to be based on a flat rate for

the avoidance of the need to check paper certificates. each local authority that would have to be re- evaluated

annually.

2.5.6 Objective – To regularise the employment position of

statutory post holders (Superintendent Registrars, Registrars of This option would require central government to annually

Births, Deaths and Marriages and Additional Registrars) by re-evaluate funding for each local authority to take account

making them local authority employees. Local authorities will of the expected shift in demand from face-to-face to remote

be able to manage the service more effectively and to integrate it registration services. As funding for local authorities reduced

with other locally provided services. overall, it would be used to pay for those services provided

centrally that will be cheaper per registration.

2.5.7 Option 1– Do nothing.

2.5.12 Option 3 – Funding to be based on the numbers of

As statutory postholders registration officers do not have the births and deaths registered in each local authority area.

same rights as other employees. They cannot use an

industrial tribunal to pursue a complaint of unfair dismissal This option would mean that funding for the registration of

or discrimination. As their duties are prescribed by law, births and deaths in each local authority would be based on

there is not a proper basis for supervision or making the best the number of events registered in, say, the previous year. It

use of resources. would reward those authorities who have large numbers of

events registered in their area and penalise those with very

For registration related performance issues they are few. It would not take account of the need to provide an

responsible to the Registrar General and for non-work accessible service across England and Wales so that there was

discipline issues they are responsible to the local authority. no social exclusion or rural discrimination.

The local authority is responsible for providing the

accommodation and management planning but does not 2.5.13 Option 4 – Funding to be a mixture of options

have direct control over how duties are allocated. It is not a 2.5.11 and 2.5.12.

suitable framework for local authorities to include

registration in a seamless way with other customer-focussed This option is a hybrid approach and seeks to derive the

services. benefits of the two former options. Each local authority

would receive a flat-rate payment to ensure the delivery of

2.5.8 Option 2 – Treat statutory officers as other local face-to-face services for births and deaths registration within

government employees. its area and an additional payment per event to encourage

competition and investment.

Regularising the position of statutory registration officers

will remove an anomaly for this group of workers. It will 2.5.14 Objective – To revise the compliance and control

enable the usual management practices and procedures to be regime to minimise the use of legislative powers and promote

applied to staff that work in civil registration within local self-regulation, supportive inspection together with necessary

authorities. These staff will enjoy an analogous position to and proportionate intervention powers.

those who work within other local government functions.

They will be able to enjoy the rights and responsibilities 2.5.15 Option 1 – Do nothing.

given by employment protection legislation.

This option would mean that central Government would

2.5.9 Objective – To establish a means of funding the local have to continue to rely on the Registrar General’s

registration service that secures accessible face-to-face services Inspectorate – an administrative function – and the limited

and provides a basis for the likely shift in work as take-up of intervention powers in RSA 1953. It would demarcate civil

remote registration facilities increases. registration from other local authority functions and is not

sustainable following the fundamental organisational

2.5.10 Option 1 – Do nothing. changes.







259

Annex E Draft partial Regulatory Impact Assessment









2.5.16 Option 2 – Introduce a unique enforcement regime 2.7 Equity and fairness

for local face-to-face registration services. There are no key groups that could be disproportionately

affected by the proposals relating to organisation and

Given the nature of civil registration services to be delivered finance.

by both local and central Government, it may have been

possible to conceive of a unique enforcement regime. Given 2.8 Small firms’ impact test

the Government’s policy to reduce the number and See Appendix E1.

frequency of Inspection regimes that monitor local

authorities, it would not be desirable to create one just for 2.9 Competition assessment

local face-to-face civil registration services. See Appendix E1.



2.5.17 Option 3 – Apply the existing enforcement regime 2.10 Enforcement and sanctions

for other local authority functions to local face-to-face 2.10.1 To ensure that at least a minimum standard of

registration services. service delivery is available locally, current national

standards, that have been developed by the ‘Local

This option utilises the existing Best Value and Government Association’ for self-monitoring, would be

Comprehensive Performance Assessment regimes for developed and underpinned by a statutory code of practice.

monitoring performance standards and improving the The code of practice would include for example, the

quality of services and can be applied to local face-to-face standard of accommodation, availability and accessibility of

registration services. It achieves the policy objective of services, IT installation and services, performance indicators

supporting local authorities to develop their services while etc. The Registrar General would have responsibility, in

providing necessary and proportionate intervention powers. consultation with stakeholders, for developing and

The transfer of the Inspectorate to the Audit Commission maintaining the national minimum standards that would be

where it will continue in a dedicated role reinforces the specified in the code of practice. Additional best practice

independence of the function. standards would not be mandatory but would be taken into

account by the Inspectorate and also may influence Best

2.6 Costs Value review conclusions.

The compliance costs fall largely on the Registrar General in

establishing the National database and the infrastructure to 2.10.2 To ensure these standards are met there would

support the national contact centre and the Internet continue to be an Inspectorate that would be responsible for

systems. monitoring adherence to the code of practice, sharing good

practice, and reporting on standards. Where necessary the

The Exchequer is expected to fund the development of the Inspectorate would invoke further action to ensure services

central database for the capture of new registrations and the are improved. Section 15 of the Local Government Act

conversion of the records of the active population. Access to 1999, that provides for the Secretary of State to intervene

the central database will be based on web technology. The where a local authority function is failing, would

system would be designed to enable access from PCs with a automatically apply when the responsibility for local

reasonable specification but there should be no need to registration services transfer to local authorities. More

ensure compatibility of technical platforms. Provision of specifically, where the Secretary of State is satisfied that an

necessary hardware, access to a secure network service and/ authority is failing to comply with requirements he may

or Internet for local access points would remain the direct it:

responsibility of each local authority. As local authorities

have to meet e-Government targets anyway it is not • To prepare or amend a performance plan.

anticipated that they will face additional costs in establishing • To follow specified procedures in relation to a

access for their staff and customers. performance plan.

• To carry out a review of its exercise of specified

There are no significant costs arising from the transfer of functions.

staff to local authority employment as they are already

subject to those pay and conditions. There is nothing in the 2.10.3 To provide the necessary independence for the

staff transfer proposals that in themselves precipitates monitoring of local registration services, it is proposed that

significant additional costs for local authorities. the Inspectorate should no longer be a direct administrative

arm of the Registrar General. It has therefore been agreed in

There are implementation and transition costs arising for principle that the newly constituted Inspectorate will be part

the Registrar General. of the functions of the Audit Commission who will work in

partnership with the Registrar General. The transfer of the





260

Draft partial Regulatory Impact Assessment Annex E









Inspection service to the Audit Commission would allow 3.3 Background

registration inspection to be co-ordinated with other The registration of births and deaths in England and Wales

inspection regimes. The inspection processes would reflect is regulated primarily by the Births and Deaths Registration

the provisions of the Best Value and performance assessment Act 1953. This Act has its roots in Victorian legislation with

frameworks including ensuring that a risk based approach to the result that the introduction of modern technology and

inspection is adopted. the ability to meet the needs of modern society are severely

restricted.

2.11 Consultation

3.4 Risk assessment

Within Government 3.4.1 The public and users of civil registration

There has been wide consultation across relevant information are constantly frustrated by the inability of the

Government Departments and Agencies about civil service to meet their needs as a result of tightly drawn

registration reform. In respect of our proposals about the Victorian legislation. This is the first fundamental reform of

Organisation and Finance of the civil registration service, civil registration in England and Wales since its creation. It

amongst those departments from whom ONS has had input represents a unique opportunity to not only modernise the

are Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Home Office, service but also to provide a framework with sufficient

the Cabinet Office and the Audit Commission. flexibility to adapt as necessary to future needs.



Public Consultation 3.4.2 While the recording of births and deaths could

Previous consultation on aspects of those proposals was continue in its present format for many years to come its

carried out in 1999 in Registration: Modernising a Vital failure to meet the needs of an ever changing society would

Service. A summary of the responses to that consultation is become more acute. Failure to reform would result in the

at Annex G. Government’s 2005 target for electronic services being

missed with little prospect of being realised in the

2.12 Monitoring and review foreseeable future. This would have a detrimental effect on

Given the scope of the draft Regulatory Reform both the public and stakeholders in terms of access and

(Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages) Order, the integration with other government services. The

proposed legislative changes will be phased in over a number opportunity to create a modern, efficient civil registration

of years. Only when all the proposed changes have been system would be lost.

implemented will it be possible to measure the effectiveness

of the legislation, although it may be possible in the interim, 3.5 Options and benefits

to assess the impact of the changes in a particular area eg 3.5.1 Objective – To provide a more responsive service with

births, marriages, etc. more choice in ways to register a birth, still-birth or death

making full use of modern technology.

Measures might include take-up rates for internet

registration, timeliness of registration, availability of central 3.5.2 Option 1 – Do nothing.

database, etc.

This option would mean no change to the current method

3 Birth, still-birth and death registration of recording life events. It would perpetuate a paper-based

system of birth and death registration with inherent

3.1 Purpose and intended effect of inefficiencies. Access to the service would be by personal

measure attendance only and restricted to office opening hours that

are often part-time. The potential for service improvement

3.2 Objective through electronic recording and transfer of information

3.2.1 To provide a more responsive service with more would be lost due to the severe restrictions on the

choice in ways to register a birth, still-birth or death making application of modern technology inherent in current

full use of modern technology. legislation.



3.2.2 To remove the geographical constraints within the 3.5.3 Option 2 – Extend the choice in ways to register

present arrangements to registering an event. by, in addition to face-to-face registration, providing a

national contact centre and an on-line service making full

3.2.3 To recognise the changing shape of society by eg use of modern web technology.

allowing a partner to register a death and extending the

options for unmarried fathers’ details to be recorded in birth This option would achieve the efficiencies and effectiveness

entries. associated with an electronic system of civil registration





261

Annex E Draft partial Regulatory Impact Assessment









whilst extending the choice of ways to register. The 3.5.9 Option 1 – Do nothing.

introduction of a central database would remove the need

for local, paper records to be the focal point for recording It is widely acknowledged that the system for the registration

vital life events. Remote registration would be possible. of births and deaths is out of step with the needs of society.

Citizens would be able to give information in person, on the The changes in recent decades of family formation and the

telephone to a national contact centre or via the internet. increasing complexity of personal and family relationships

The availability of remote registration would mean that help are difficult to ignore. Legislation based on nineteenth

and guidance could be available twenty-four hours a day, century morality is inappropriate in the modern era.

seven days a week.

3.5.10 Option 2 – Extend the list of those persons who are

3.5.4 Option 3 – In addition to on-line and telephone legally able to give information for the registration of a

registration, allow postal registration. death to include the deceased’s partner.



Citizens could be given an additional choice of ways to This option demonstrates the responsiveness of the legal

register by providing registration by post. It could be done framework to the list of people who are qualified to give

either as an alternative, or in addition to electronic and information for the registration of a death. Currently, the

telephone registration. On the surface the option of a postal partner of a deceased person is only able to register a death if

system would be relatively easy to implement though it he or she was present at the death or is making the funeral

would perpetuate a paper based system. Maintenance of the arrangements. He or she is not qualified by virtue of any

accuracy and integrity of the records of births and deaths personal relationship to the deceased even if that

must form a cornerstone of any reform. Transferring data relationship has subsisted for many years.

from paper to computer carries an additional element of risk

in this respect. Moreover, there is a danger that instances of 3.5.11 Option 3 – Remove fully the distinction between

postal registrations being rejected would be high unless the the registration of births of children whose parents are

standard of acceptable information is lowered. married to each other and those who are not.



3.5.5 Objective – To remove the geographical constraints There is a rebuttable presumption in law that a child born

within the present arrangements for registering an event. to a married woman is a child of the marriage. In practice

this means that either the mother or the father of a child

3.5.6 Option 1 – Do nothing. whose parents are married can register its birth. For

unmarried parents the situation is different; the mother is

This option defeats one of the main aims of civil registration regarded as the primary informant and the father can only

reform that is to improve service delivery. The nature of register the birth if he does so jointly with the mother. To

today’s society – increasingly mobile and more demanding fully remove this distinction and allow unmarried fathers to

of public services generally – dictates that old-fashioned register births without any corroboration of their paternity

geographic boundaries should not inhibit service delivery. of a child would overturn the presumption of legitimacy.

This is unacceptable.

3.5.7 Option 2 – Remove the present geographical

constraints and allow information to be given in person to 3.5.12 Option 4 – Within certain parameters better

any registration officer. facilitate the recording of father’s names in birth entries of

children whose parents are not married.

This option demands the removal of geographic boundaries

that, in turn, underpins the development of a centralised Notwithstanding the presumption explained in paragraph

electronic system for the registration of births and deaths. It 3.5.11, it is possible with a centralised system of registration

would mean that the legal provisions that necessitate the to allow unmarried fathers to give sole information about a

need for personal attendance for the purpose of registering a birth first. Their paternity could be later confirmed by the

birth or death would continue though it would be satisfied mother thus enabling a registration that contains details of

more easily by attendance at any registration office in both parents.

England or Wales. Citizens would benefit from a greater

choice of face-to-face services that would enable them to 3.6 Costs

choose the service that best suited their circumstances. 3.6.1 There would be start-up costs in respect of the

development of the necessary software for the registration of

3.5.8 Objective – To recognise the changing shape of society births and deaths. There would also be on-going software

by allowing a partner to register a death and extending the maintenance and updating costs for future years.

options for unmarried fathers’ details to be recorded in birth Implementation costs will be incurred in staff training and

entries.



262

Draft partial Regulatory Impact Assessment Annex E









production of guidance material. Extensive publicity would authority is failing to comply with requirements he may

be required on implementation and there would be a one- direct it:

off cost in adapting/updating current information and

advice material. Offsetting savings would be made through • To prepare or amend a performance plan.

efficiencies related to the electronic recording and transfer of • To follow specified procedures in relation to a

vital event information. It is difficult to quantify the costs performance plan.

and savings of the proposal and we want, through • To carry out a review of its exercise of specified

consultation, to obtain further information on these aspects. functions.



3.6.2 There would be no associated compliance costs on 3.10.3 To provide the necessary independence for the

business, charities or voluntary organisations. The monitoring of local registration services, it is proposed that

registration of births and deaths is a function of central and the Inspectorate should no longer be a direct administrative

local government and will continue as such. The affects on arm of the Registrar General. It has therefore been agreed in

business of the introduction of an underpinning central principle that the newly constituted Inspectorate will be part

database in support of an electronic registration system are of the functions of the Audit Commission who will work in

considered in Appendix 1. partnership with the Registrar General. The transfer of the

Inspection service to the Audit Commission would allow

3.7 Equity and fairness registration inspection to be co-ordinated with other

There are no key groups that could be disproportionately inspection regimes. The inspection processes would reflect

affected by the proposals relating to the registration of the provisions of the Best Value and performance assessment

births, still-births and deaths. frameworks including ensuring that a risk based approach to

inspection is adopted.

3.8 Small firms’ impact test

See Appendix E1. 3.11 Consultation



3.9 Competition assessment Within Government

See Appendix E1. There has been wide consultation across relevant

Government Departments and Agencies about civil

3.10 Enforcement and sanctions registration reform. In respect of our proposals about the

3.10.1 To ensure that at least a minimum standard of service registration of births and deaths, amongst those departments

delivery is available locally, current national standards, that from whom ONS has had input are Office of the Deputy

have been developed by the ‘Local Government Association’ Prime Minister, the Home Office, the Department of

for self-monitoring, would be developed and underpinned Health, the Department of Work and Pensions, the Office

by a statutory code of practice. The code of practice would of the E-Envoy and the Cabinet Office.

include for example, the standard of accommodation,

availability and accessibility of services, IT installation and Public Consultation

services, performance indicators etc. The Registrar General Previous consultation on aspects of those proposals was

would have responsibility, in consultation with stakeholders, carried out in 1999 in Registration: Modernising a Vital

for developing and maintaining the national minimum Service. A summary of the responses to that consultation is

standards that would be specified in the code of practice. at Annex G.

Additional best practice standards would not be mandatory

but would be taken into account by the Inspectorate and 3.12 Monitoring and review

also may influence Best Value review conclusions. Given the scope of the draft Regulatory Reform

(Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages) Order, the

3.10.2 To ensure these standards are met there would proposed legislative changes will be phased in over a number

continue to be an Inspectorate that would be responsible for of years. Only when all the proposed changes have been

monitoring adherence to the code of practice, sharing good implemented will it be possible to measure the effectiveness

practice, and reporting on standards. Where necessary the of the legislation, although it may be possible in the interim,

Inspectorate would invoke further action to ensure services to assess the impact of the changes in a particular area eg

are improved. Section 15 of the Local Government Act births, marriages, etc.

1999, that provides for the Secretary of State to intervene

where a local authority function is failing, would Measures might include take-up rates for internet

automatically apply when the responsibility for local registration, timeliness of registration, availability of central

registration services transfer to local authorities. More database, etc.

specifically, where the Secretary of State is satisfied that an





263

Annex E Draft partial Regulatory Impact Assessment









4 Marriages following the giving of the notice. He is also required to

enter the details from the notice into a marriage notice book

4.1. Purpose and intended effect of that has to be available for public inspection at all reasonable

measure times.



4.2 Objective 4.3.5 Once the fifteen days has passed, and provided that

4.2.1 To modernise the arrangements for the completion no impediment to the marriage has been shown to exist, the

of the civil preliminaries to marriage in England and Wales superintendent registrar will issue his authority for the

(excluding those according to the rites and ceremonies of the marriage to proceed. The person who gave notice must

Church of England and the Church in Wales). apply for the authority and collect it from the

superintendent registrar.

4.2.2 To remove the current restrictions and anomalies

on where people can marry and introduce a celebrant-based 4.3.6 Objective – To remove the current restrictions and

system for marriage including the Church of England. anomalies on where people can marry and introduce a

celebrant-based system for marriage including the Church of

4.2.3 To remove the anomalies in the form of marriage England.

ceremony between civil and religious marriages (including

those according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of 4.3.7 Couples can have either a civil or a religious

England and the Church in Wales). marriage ceremony, between the hours of 8am and 6pm. A

civil marriage can take place in any register office or

4.2.4 To modernise the arrangements for the registration approved premise in England or Wales, regardless of the

of marriages (including those according to the rites and couples’ district(s) of residence. A religious marriage can

ceremonies of the Church of England and the Church in take place in either a church or chapel of the Church of

Wales). England or Church in Wales, or in a building that has been

certified as a place of religious worship and then registered

4.2.5 To modernise the arrangements for marriage and for the solemnisation of marriages.

the preliminaries to marriage in the Church of England.

4.3.8 If a couple wish to marry in a church or chapel of

4.2.6 To modernise the arrangements relating to marriage the Church of England or the Church in Wales, one of them

under various miscellaneous provisions. must live in the parish in which the church or chapel is

situated, or be on the electoral roll of that church. If the

4.3 Background couple wish to marry in a registered building, one of them

4.3.1 Objective –To modernise the arrangements for the must live in the registration district in which the building is

completion of the civil preliminaries to marriage in England situated. Alternatively, the building must be the usual place

and Wales (excluding those according to the rites and ceremonies of worship of one of them or belong to a denomination that

of the Church of England and the Church in Wales). is not represented in the couple’s district(s) of residence.



4.3.2 Under the provisions of the Marriage Act 1949, all 4.3.9 Those wishing to marry according to the usages of

marriages, apart from those according to the rites and the Jews and the Society of Friends are, due to mainly

ceremonies of the Church of England and the Church in historical reasons, exempt from the provisions in paragraphs

Wales, must be preceded by civil preliminaries. In order to 4.3.7–4.3.8. Marriages according to the rites and ceremonies

complete civil preliminaries, the couple must each give of the Jews or the Society of Friends can take place

notice, in person, to the superintendent registrar of the anywhere, at any time and regardless of the couple’s district

registration district in which they have had their usual of residence.

residence for the preceding seven days.

4.3.10 A registrar and a superintendent registrar must be

4.3.3 The giving of notice involves the completion of a present at all civil marriages. Marriages in registered

form by the superintendent registrar with personal details buildings must take place in the presence of a registrar or an

relating to the bride and groom. The person giving the authorised person. Marriages according to the usages of the

notice must sign the form confirming that to the best of Jews or the Society of Friends must take place in the

their knowledge and belief, the information shown is correct presence of a secretary for marriages or a registering officer

and there is no impediment to the proposed marriage. respectively. Marriages according to the rites and ceremonies

of the Church of England or the Church in Wales must take

4.3.4 The superintendent registrar is required to display place in the presence of a member of the clergy.

the notice in his office for fifteen days immediately





264

Draft partial Regulatory Impact Assessment Annex E









4.3.11 Objective – To remove the anomalies in the form of 4.3.18 All those required to register marriages must

marriage ceremony between civil and religious marriages deposit a filled marriage register with the local

(including those according to the rites and ceremonies of the superintendent registrar. Where duplicate marriage registers

Church of England and the Church in Wales). are used, the second register is kept by the church.



4.3.12 Currently, there is a distinction between civil and 4.3.19 In order to create a central archive of all marriages

religious marriages and there is no proposal to alter this. The that have taken place, those who hold marriage registers are

Marriage Act 1949 requires that during a civil ceremony, required, at the end of every quarter, to send copies of every

which must be completely secular in nature, the couple entry they have made to their local superintendent registrar

must say prescribed words of declaration and contract to who, in turn, is required to send them to the Registrar

each other. General.



4.3.13 A marriage in a registered building can be 4.3.20 Objective – To modernise the arrangements for

according to any rites and ceremonies of a religious body marriage and the preliminaries to marriage in the Church of

that the couple and Minister who is to perform the marriage England.

ceremony agree to use. In addition, in some part of the

ceremony, the couple must say to each other the prescribed 4.3.21 A marriage according to the rites and ceremonies of

words of declaration and contract mentioned above. These the Church of England can take place after the publication

words cannot be separated from the ceremony and must of banns, following the issue of a common licence or of an

form an integral part of it. Archbishop of Canterbury’s Special Licence or following the

completion of civil preliminaries. The vast majority -

4.3.14 Those marrying according to the rites and approximately 90 per cent - of marriages according to the

ceremonies of the Jews, the Society of Friends, the Church rites and ceremonies of the Church of England take place

of England and the Church in Wales are not subject to this following the publication of banns.

requirement to use prescribed words of declaration and

contract, mainly due to historical reasons. 4.3.22 There are very prescriptive requirements about

where the banns of marriage must be published. These

4.3.15 Objective – To modernise the arrangements for the appear in Part II of the Marriage Act 1949. If the couple live

registration of marriages (including those according to the rites outside the parish of the church in which they wish to

and ceremonies of the Church of England and the Church in marry, banns must be called in more than one place, further

Wales). complicating the process.



4.3.16 The Marriage Act 1949 requires that all marriages 4.3.23 In certain circumstances, it may not be appropriate

are registered using a paper-based system. All civil marriages, for banns of marriage to be called, in which case the couple

whether they take place in a register office or approved can apply for a common licence. In order to do so, one of

premises, are recorded in a register held by a registrar of the the couple must have a fifteen day residence in the parish

district in which the marriage takes place. where the marriage is to take place. There is no residence

requirement for the other person.

4.3.17 Religious marriages, including those according to

the rites and ceremonies of the Jews, the Society of Friends, 4.3.24 There are similarly complex arrangements about

the Church of England and the Church in Wales, are where marriages according to the rites and ceremonies of the

registered in duplicate marriage registers usually by one of Church of England can take place. These arrangements are

the following: set out in the Marriage Act 1949.



• authorised person (someone appointed by the trustees 4.3.25 Objective – To modernise the arrangements relating

of a registered building to register marriages that take to marriage under various miscellaneous provisions.

place there);

• secretary for marriages; 4.3.26 There are a number of miscellaneous provisions

• registering officer of the Society of Friends; and that require a superintendent registrar to take a notice or

• member of the clergy who solemnises the marriage. solemnise a marriage in circumstances that fall outside those

described above. For example, a superintendent registrar can

The only exception is where a registered building does not take a notice of marriage for and solemnise a marriage at the

have an authorised person. In this instance, a registrar would residence of someone who is housebound, detained or

attend the ceremony and register the marriage in his or her dying. They can also take notices for marriages abroad

marriage register. where the couple have to satisfy foreign authorities that





265

Annex E Draft partial Regulatory Impact Assessment









there is no impediment to the proposed marriage. The aim 4.4.8 Objective – To remove the anomalies in the form of

would be to modernise these provisions. marriage ceremony between civil and religious marriages

(including those according to the rites and ceremonies of the

4.4 Risk assessment Church of England and the Church in Wales).

4.4.1 Objective – To modernise the arrangements for the

completion of the civil preliminaries to marriage in England 4.4.9 As with the place of marriage, it is difficult to

and Wales (excluding those according to the rites and ceremonies justify the difference in treatment between religious

of the Church of England and the Church in Wales). denominations and this could raise questions of

compatibility with the European Convention on Human

4.4.2 The requirements for the preliminaries to marriage Rights.

are set out in the Marriage Act 1949. Due to the prescriptive

and detailed nature of this statutory framework, the 4.4.10 Objective – To modernise the arrangements for the

provisions are inflexible, do not provide for the use of registration of marriages (including those according to the rites

modern technology and increasingly are not able to respond and ceremonies of the Church of England and the Church in

to the demands of today’s society. In many cases, it is not Wales).

convenient for the couple to give notice in the area where

they live. Society is much more mobile than when these 4.4.11 There is no proposal to change the requirement for

provisions were first enacted, and people often no longer live all marriages to be registered. The objective aims to improve

and work in the same area. and modernise the means by which they are registered.



4.4.3 Publicising the marriage in the register office by 4.4.12 The current paper-based system, set out in the

posting the notice on the wall is outdated and often not the 1949 Act, relies heavily on the manual completion of

means by which someone discovers that a marriage has been registers, which are stored in church buildings, and the

planned. Entering the notice in the marriage notice book is manual completion of quarterly copy forms. Superintendent

a duplication of effort, no longer relevant in today’s society. registrars are required to chase any entries that they know to

be missing and there is every reason to suppose that they

4.4.4 It is not always convenient for the couple to return successfully obtain a copy of the registration of all marriages

to where they gave notice in order to collect the that have taken place and been registered. However, the

superintendent registrar’s authority for the marriage. The system is inefficient, resource intensive and does not make

legislation states that it is only the superintendent registrar use of modern technology. Changing the system would

who took the notice who is able to issue the authority. remove the burden on those required to register marriages

and provide a more modern, robust system for the

4.4.5 Objective – To remove the current restrictions and registration of marriages.

anomalies on where people can marry and introduce a

celebrant-based system for marriage including the Church of 4.4.13 Objective – To modernise the arrangements for

England. marriage and the preliminaries to marriage in the Church of

England.

4.4.6 The requirements for when and where marriages

can take place are set out in the Marriage Act 1949. The 4.4.14 The requirements for marriage according to the

statutory framework, which is based largely on that put in rites and ceremonies of the Church of England are set out in

place in 1837, no longer meets the needs of today’s society Part II of the Marriage Act 1949. The current restrictions on

and means that it is difficult for local authorities to offer the where banns of marriage may be published cause problems

services that are desired and expected by couples wishing to because many couples going to a parish church for marriage

marry. often do not live in that parish, do not worship there and

may have no intention of living there or being part of that

4.4.7 It is also difficult to defend why, for a civil community. Alternatively, many couples consider their

marriage, couples can choose to marry anywhere, when current place of residence as no more than temporary and

there is no such freedom for those choosing to have a feel a greater connection or affinity with some other parish,

religious marriage, unless it is according to the usages of the perhaps where they were brought up or where their parents

Jews and the Society of Friends. Similarly, it is difficult to now live. Increasingly, the level of mobility within society

justify the difference in treatment between religious makes parochial boundaries seem irrelevant.

denominations and this could raise the question of

compatibility with the European Convention on Human 4.4.15 In recent years, the Church has seen changes in

Rights. legislation that have allowed civil marriages to take place in

a wider variety of buildings, together with a dramatic





266

Draft partial Regulatory Impact Assessment Annex E









growth in the number of such marriages. The Government 4.5.5 Option – Allow couples to give notice anywhere in

has announced its intention to bring about further England or Wales.

legislative change to modernise the system of civil

registration in England and Wales. In relation to marriage, 4.5.6 Couples would be able to complete their

this means a relaxation of the restrictions on where preliminaries anywhere in England or Wales, regardless of

marriages can take place and greater use of modern their district(s) of residence or where the marriage was to

technology in the preliminaries to marriage. take place. Amending the current provisions would allow

for greater use of modern technology. Introduction of a

4.4.16 These changes will inevitably have an impact on central database of notices would mean that it would not

society’s expectations of marriage ceremonies. Failure by the matter that a couple had given notice outside their district(s)

Church of England to respond to these changes could see a of residence or at different times as both notices could be

further decline in the number of marriages according to linked. Couples could choose to access registration services

those rites and ceremonies. at a point that was most convenient to them and the

marriage could be publicised more widely eg via the

4.4.17 Objective – To modernise the arrangements relating internet.

to marriage under various miscellaneous provisions.

4.5.7 Administrative procedures would need to be in

4.4.18 Failure to modernise the miscellaneous provisions place to deal with the unlikely event that the database was

outlined above would put certain groups of people at a unavailable. There would need to be safeguards in place to

disadvantage compared to others who would be able to take ensure that people could not circumvent the usual

advantage of the new arrangements. For example, it would procedures and checks in such a situation.

mean that those wishing to marry overseas would still need

to give notice in the area where they live rather than in the 4.5.8 This option would meet the policy objective and

area which is most convenient to them. It would also mean provide a modern, flexible and responsive system for the

maintaining some of the present arrangements for a civil preliminaries to marriage. Couples would be able to

minority eg maintenance of registers for those marriages choose where they completed their preliminaries to

where the couple need to marry at home. marriage, and the use of the central database and the wider

publicity should provide added protection against bigamous

4.5. Options and benefits and fraudulent marriages.

4.5.1 Objective – To modernise the arrangements for the

completion of the civil preliminaries to marriage in England 4.5.9 Option – Allow couples to give notice by post/via

and Wales (excluding those according to the rites and ceremonies the internet.

of the Church of England and the Church in Wales).

4.5.10 The bride and groom would be able to complete a

4.5.2 Option – Do nothing. notice form and send it, via the post or by e-mail, to the

registration authority either where the marriage was going to

4.5.3 The current system for the preliminaries to take place or where they had their usual residence. This

marriage that applies to England and Wales is based could be entered onto a central database and publicised

primarily on that put in place in 1837. It is familiar to those more widely eg via the internet.

who work in the registration service and to the wider public.

It operates successfully for the majority of marriages and 4.5.11 Couples would be able to access registration

provides a certain level of protection to ensure that services at a time that suited them. The main difference

marriages take place within the law. However, the system has between this and option 2 would be that couples would not

little relevance in today’s society and is difficult to defend need to attend in person before a registration authority in

against those who consider it to be outdated or inflexible. order to give their notice of marriage.



4.5.4 The legislation as it stands would allow for limited 4.5.12 This requirement was introduced for both the bride

use of modern technology but restricts any attempt to and groom on 1 January 2001, via the Immigration and

respond to increasing demands from the couple for a Asylum Act 1999, as part of a package of measures aimed at

modern service that meets their needs and expectations. It reducing the opportunities for fraud in relation to marriage.

also limits the use that can be made of modern technology The Government has announced in the White Paper Civil

to tackle fraud in relation to marriage eg by publicising Registration: Vital Change published in January 2002 that it

marriages more widely. This option fails to achieve the has no intention of removing this requirement so soon after

policy objective of modernising the arrangements for the it has been introduced.

completion of the preliminaries to marriage in England and

Wales.



267

Annex E Draft partial Regulatory Impact Assessment









4.5.13 This system is akin to that already in place in remains a question mark about whether this option would

Scotland and would meet the policy objective outlined fully meet the needs of those wishing to marry. The system

above. However, in doing so, it would conflict with the of marriage would still be somewhat inflexible, and there

Government’s policy, restated in the White Paper Civil would still be considerable restrictions about where

Registration: Vital Change that couples should give notice in marriages could take place.

person.

4.5.21 Option – Celebrant-based system of marriage.

4.5.14 Objective – To remove the current restrictions and

anomalies on where people can marry and introduce a 4.5.22 A third option is to regulate the people who can

celebrant-based system for marriage including the Church of perform marriage ceremonies rather than the places where

England. marriages can take place. In this way, the venue for the

marriage would become a matter of negotiation between the

4.5.15 Option – Do nothing couple and the celebrant. It would apply equally to all

marriages, both civil and religious, and would introduce

4.5.16 The current restrictions on where marriages can considerable flexibility and choice into the system of

take place are based primarily on those put in place in 1837. marriage. Similar systems operate in New Zealand, Scotland

The system is familiar to those who administer it. It and Canada.

provides a degree of consistency and certainty about where

marriages can and should take place, and serves to protect 4.5.23 Such a system would be much more responsive to

the solemnity and dignity of the occasion. the needs and circumstances of the couple, without

removing any of the protections that currently ensure that

4.5.17 In recent years there has been some relaxation but marriages take place in accordance with the law. The

this has related to civil marriage only. The system is difficult importance and the solemnity of the occasion would be

to defend in today’s society, even more so since there is a maintained, due to the involvement of a duly appointed

difference in the requirements for those choosing to have a celebrant. At the same time, the system would be flexible

civil ceremony and for those choosing to have a religious and able to adapt to changing needs and expectations of

ceremony. Increasingly, couples expect equality of treatment, society. It would fully meet the policy objective, whilst

and demand a system of marriage that can adapt to and maintaining the necessary protections and safeguards to

meet their needs and expectations. The present system does ensure that marriages take place in accordance with the law.

not allow for this. This option would fail to meet the policy

objective of removing the current restrictions and anomalies 4.5.24 Objective – To remove the anomalies in the form of

surrounding the choice of marriage venue. marriage ceremony between civil and religious marriages

(including those according to the rites and ceremonies of the

4.5.18 Option – Extend the current arrangements for the Church of England and the Church in Wales).

licensing and approving of venues.

4.5.25 Option – Do nothing.

4.5.19 One option would be to extend the current

arrangements and provide for a wider choice of venues to be 4.5.26 The present arrangements are familiar to those who

approved or licensed eg private homes, or parks. This would administer them. Registrars when attending a civil or

increase the burden on local authorities who most likely, religious marriage ceremony know the words of declaration

would be responsible for these arrangements – it is unlikely and contract that the bride and groom are required to say to

that the centralisation of such activity would be acceptable. each other. Similarly, authorised persons, whether acting at

It would also mean that venues for marriages according to their own church or another church within the same

the usages of the Jews and the Quakers would for the first registration district know what the bride and groom are

time need to be regulated. It is feared that this option might required to say to each other. The Jews, Quakers, the

also lead to inequalities and inconsistencies of treatment, Church of England and the Church in Wales benefit from

particularly in respect of private homes. an exception to this requirement, due mainly to historical

reasons.

4.5.20 This option would go some way to meeting the

policy objective. It would provide a more flexible and 4.5.27 This option would fail to meet the policy objective

responsive system than that currently in place, and would of removing the current anomalies surrounding the form of

provide couples with greater choice about where marriages marriage ceremony. It is also not realistic given the risk of

could take place. It would go some way to removing some of challenge under the European Convention on Human

the anomalies that exist between civil and religious Rights.

marriages, and would continue to provide a degree of

consistency about where marriages could take place. There



268

Draft partial Regulatory Impact Assessment Annex E









4.5.28 Option – Introduce prescribed words of declaration added benefit is that it would allow religious denominations

and contract for everyone. to choose and adopt a form of words that best suited the

needs of their faith and their congregations. However, it is

4.5.29 Those marrying according to the rites and felt that there needs to be a clear and distinctive act that

ceremonies of the Jews, Quakers, the Church of England creates a contract of marriage. Otherwise, there could be

and the Church in Wales are currently not required to use doubts about when a couple is married to each other, or

the words of declaration and contract that are prescribed in indeed whether or not they have contracted a valid marriage.

the Marriage Act 1949.

4.5.37 Objective – To modernise the arrangements for the

4.5.30 This option would meet the policy objective. It registration of marriages (including those according to the rites

would provide consistency for registrars and others who are and ceremonies of the Church of England and the Church in

required to satisfy themselves that the requirements of the Wales).

law have been met. It would also remove the current

anomalies between civil and some religious marriages, and 4.5.38 Option – Do nothing.

between some religious denominations. However,

consultation with the religious organisations mentioned in 4.5.39 The present system is familiar to those who

4.5.29 has indicated that there would be considerable administer it, and the infrastructure is in place to ensure it

opposition to any proposal from the Government that they operates successfully and that all marriages are registered. It

should use such words like all other religious is also familiar to the general public who expect to sign a

denominations. marriage register immediately following their marriage

ceremony.

4.5.31 Option – Adopt the Scottish model.

4.5.40 The current paper-based system relies heavily on

4.5.32 The Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 does not have the manual completion of registers which are stored in

prescribed words of declaration and contract. Instead, the church buildings, and on the manual completion of

Act requires the couple to each make a declaration that they quarterly copy forms. It is resource intensive. For example,

accept each other as husband and wife, and for the celebrant following a marriage ceremony, the details relating to the

to make a declaration that the couple are then husband and couple have to be hand-written at least four times in order

wife. The exact form of words used is left for the celebrant to comply with the requirements of the Marriage Act 1949.

and the couple to agree.

4.5.41 This option would fail to meet the policy objective

4.5.33 It is likely that many denominations would of removing the current anomalies surrounding the

continue to use the currently prescribed words of declaration registration of marriages. Given the Government’s

and contract, as these would meet the criteria outlined commitment to greater use of electronic communication,

above. Equally, the forms of marriage ceremony currently and given the modern technology that is available to

used by the Jews, Quakers, the Church of England and the improve and increase efficiency, the status quo is not a

Church in Wales would also meet these criteria. Therefore realistic option.

the impact of this option, whilst introducing the same legal

requirement for everyone wishing to marry in this country, 4.5.42 Option – Allow celebrants to hold marriage

means that there can still be diversity and choice within registers.

denominations, and within civil marriages.

4.5.43 This option would be a variation of the current

4.5.34 This option would fully meet the policy objective. system. Couples would continue to sign a marriage register

It would remove the anomalies that currently exist, but the immediately following their marriage ceremony. The system

added benefit is that it would allow religious denominations would be familiar to many and there would merely need to

to choose and adopt a form of words that best suited the be an extension of the current arrangements and

needs of their faith and their congregations within set infrastructure rather than a complete shift to another means

criteria. Each denomination could adopt a different form of of collecting the information relating to the registration of

words, providing the prescribed criteria were met. marriages.



4.5.35 Option – Do not have prescribed words of 4.5.44 Currently, registers are allocated to a building or

declaration and contract. registration district. In this option, registers would be

allocated to an individual who had been appointed to

4.5.36 This option would fully meet the policy objective. perform marriage ceremonies. Given that there are likely to

It would remove the anomalies that currently exist, but the be considerably more people appointed to perform marriage





269

Annex E Draft partial Regulatory Impact Assessment









ceremonies than there are venues where marriages can take the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England would

place, this option would merely exacerbate the problems and give notice to the civil authorities, as for all other marriages.

inefficiencies of the present system. It would therefore fail to The venue for a marriage would become a matter of

meet the policy objective of removing the current anomalies negotiation between the couple and the member of the

surrounding the registration of marriages. clergy who is to perform the marriage ceremony, without

the need for the couple to be resident in the parish.

4.5.45 Option – Adopt schedule system for the

registration of marriages. 4.5.54 This option would fully meet the policy objective.

It would introduce much more flexibility and choice into

4.5.46 This system has already proved successful in the system of marriage according to the rites of the Church

Scotland where it has been in place since 1977. The of England, and would place the Church on a par with all

authority for the marriage issued by the registration other religious denominations. However, the Church has

authority would also serve as the registration document democratically decided that it wishes to retain, in part, its

immediately following the marriage ceremony. The couple, traditional roles in relation to marriage. It is not prepared to

the witnesses and the celebrant would all sign the schedule move to a system of universal civil preliminaries or to

instead of the register. The schedule would then be returned arrangements where marriages can take place almost

to the registration authority so that the marriage could be anywhere.

registered onto a central database.

4.5.55 Option – Adapt Government’s proposals for

4.5.47 Use of the central database avoids the need for marriage to the needs of the Church of England.

quarterly copies to be completed. The information would be

held more securely and collected more speedily. There is less 4.5.56 The Church of England does not have to fully

risk that the database of marriages is not complete or up-to- adopt the proposals relating to marriage put forward by the

date. This option would fully meet the policy objective of Government in the White Paper ‘Civil Registration: Vital

modernising the arrangements for the registration of Change’. However, it could go some way to improving and

marriages. It would make best use of modern technology, modernising its current systems whilst still maintaining its

streamline procedures, increase efficiency and overall community based outlook by adopting a joint church/state

improve the means by which marriages are registered. preliminary for marriage. The couple would be required to

give notice to a member of the clergy, who would then

4.5.48 Objective – To modernise the arrangements for forward the notice forms to the local registration authority.

marriage and the preliminaries to marriage in the Church of The forms would be dealt with in the same way as for all

England. other marriages, and it would be the registration authority

who would issue confirmation that there was no legal

4.5.49 Option – Do nothing. impediment to the proposed marriage.



4.5.50 The general public and the clergy are familiar with 4.5.57 Such a system would maintain the contact between

and accept the current procedures. It has deep-seated history the couple and the clergy and provide an opportunity for

and traditions and serves to uphold the special status of the marriage preparation etc. Also, as all notices would be

Church of England in relation to marriage and the State. entered onto the central database, the schedule system could

be used for the registration of such marriages, introducing

4.5.51 The Church of England has recognised the impact, modern technology into what is currently a paper-based

in recent years, of the changes to civil legislation on the system.

number of church marriages. The Church also recognises

that an opportunity may be lost if they do not keep step 4.5.58 The Church could also extend the choice of venues

with the Government’s intention to modernise the system of for marriage, without fully adopting the celebrant-based

marriage in England and Wales. This option would not model for marriage. This can do this in two ways. One is to

meet the policy objective. extend the provision to marry in a Church of England

building to those who have a demonstrable connection with

4.5.52 Option – Adopt fully the Government’s proposals that building. The second is to extend the number of

for marriage. buildings licensed for marriage to include chapels such as a

school or college chapel.

4.5.53 This option would mean a significant shift for the

Church, from its current parochial based system for 4.5.59 This option would go some way towards meeting

marriage. Banns would no longer be a legal preliminary to the policy objective. It would serve to uphold the special

marriage. Instead, all those wishing to marry according to position of the Church of England in relation to the State





270

Draft partial Regulatory Impact Assessment Annex E









and in relation to other religious denominations. It would annual review will continue as there will still be a nationally

maintain some of the history and traditions that currently set, statutory fee for the giving of notice, whatever system is

exist, whilst at the same time would move the church adopted.

towards modernisation and greater use of technology.

4.6.2 There would be initial set-up costs in moving to a

4.5.60 Objective – To modernise the arrangements relating celebrant-based system for marriage. These would include

to marriage under various miscellaneous provisions. the creation of a database of duly appointed celebrants,

training for registration officers and General Register Office

4.5.61 Option – Do nothing. staff and the issue of guidance to civil and religious

celebrants, but it is difficult to quantify what these might be

4.5.62 The provisions are familiar to those who administer at this stage. The fees paid by the public to the Local

the service and cover a wide range of circumstances. They Authority would continue to cover on-going costs incurred

aim to assist members of the public in facilitating a by the Local Authority in administering the system of

marriage, in what can be difficult situations. marriage, eg the costs incurred in the appointment of civil

celebrants. These costs might be included in the fee for

4.5.63 Failure to modernise the miscellaneous provisions giving notice or in the fee for the marriage ceremony but

outlined above would put certain groups of people at a each fee is reviewed on an annual basis and will continue to

disadvantage compared to others who would be able to take be in the future.

advantage of the new arrangements. For example, those

wishing to marry overseas would still need to give notice in 4.6.3 There would be some negligible set-up costs

the area where they live rather than in the area which is involved in achieving this policy objective, which would

most convenient to them. It would also mean maintaining relate mainly to the issuing of guidance for civil and

some of the present arrangements for a minority eg religious celebrants. There would be no on-going costs.

maintenance of registers for those marriages where the

couple need to marry at home. This option would not meet 4.6.4 There would be initial set-up costs in moving to a

the policy objective. schedule system for the registration of marriages. These

would include training for registration officers, celebrants

4.5.64 Option – Modernise arrangements in line with and General Register Office staff, the issue of guidance to

other proposed changes. celebrants and the closure and recall of current marriage

registers. It is difficult to quantify the costs and savings of

4.5.65 This is realistically the only option, given that the the proposal and we want, through consultation, to obtain

system of marriage should be easily understood by those further information on these aspects.

who need to access it. Having different arrangements for

these specific circumstances would only serve to confuse the 4.6.5 There would be initial set-up costs in modernising

general public, and would make the system more difficult to the arrangements for marriage and the preliminaries to

administer. marriage in the Church of England. These would include

training for registration officers, members of the clergy,

4.5.66 This option would meet the policy objective, and General Register Office staff, the issue of guidance to

would ensure that everyone could take advantage of an members of the clergy and the closure and recall of current

improved and modernised system of marriage and the marriage registers. It is difficult to quantify the costs and

preliminaries to marriage. savings of the proposal and we want, through consultation

with the Church of England, to obtain further information

4.6 Costs on these aspects.

4.6.1 There would be initial set-up costs in modernising

the arrangements for the preliminaries to marriage. These 4.6.6 There would be initial set-up costs in modernising

would include the cost of the central database, training for the arrangements for these miscellaneous provisions. These

registration officers and General Register Office staff, the would include training for registration officers, celebrants

issue of guidance to civil and religious celebrants, but it is and General Register Office staff and the issue of guidance

difficult to quantify what these might be at this stage. The to celebrants, but it is difficult to quantify what these might

fees paid by the public to the Local Authority for the giving be at this stage. The fees paid by the public to the Local

of notice would continue to cover on-going costs, whatever Authority for the giving of notice would continue to cover

option is chosen. The current cost of giving notice of on-going costs of providing these miscellaneous provisions.

marriage is based on the average cost to local authorities of

providing the registration service. The fee is currently set at 4.7 Equity and fairness

£30 and is reviewed on an annual basis. This process of There are no key groups that could be disproportionately





271

Annex E Draft partial Regulatory Impact Assessment









affected by the proposals relating to the preliminaries to and inspection regimes. The inspection processes would reflect

registration of marriages. the provisions of the Best Value and performance assessment

frameworks including ensuring that a risk based approach to

4.8 Small firms’ impact test inspection is adopted.

See Appendix E1.

4.10.4 Religious bodies would be expected to self-regulate,

4.9 Competition Assessment although there may be instances where the Registrar General

See Appendix E1. has to intervene or to bring matters to the attention of the

religious body for action.

4.10 Enforcement and sanctions

4.10.1 To ensure that at least a minimum standard of 4.11 Consultation

service delivery is available locally, current national

standards, that have been developed by the ‘Local Within Government

Government Association’ for self-monitoring, would be There has been wide consultation across relevant

developed and underpinned by a statutory code of practice. Government Departments and Agencies about civil

The code of practice would include for example, the registration reform. In respect of our proposals about

standard of accommodation, availability and accessibility of marriage, amongst those departments from whom ONS has

services, IT installation and services, performance indicators had input are Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the

etc. The Registrar General would have responsibility, in Home Office, the Lord Chancellor’s Department, the

consultation with stakeholders, for developing and Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Charity

maintaining the national minimum standards that would be Commission.

specified in the code of practice. Additional best practice

standards would not be mandatory but would be taken into Public Consultation

account by the Inspectorate and also may influence Best Previous consultation on aspects of those proposals was

Value review conclusions. carried out in 1999 in Registration: Modernising a Vital

Service. A summary of the responses to that consultation is

4.10.2 To ensure these standards are met there would at Annex G.

continue to be an Inspectorate that would be responsible for

monitoring adherence to the code of practice, sharing good 4.12 Monitoring and review

practice, and reporting on standards. Where necessary the Given the scope of the draft Regulatory Reform

Inspectorate would invoke further action to ensure services (Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages) Order, the

are improved. Section 15 of the Local Government Act proposed legislative changes will be phased in over a number

1999, that provides for the Secretary of State to intervene of years. Only when all the proposed changes have been

where a local authority function is failing, would implemented will it be possible to measure the effectiveness

automatically apply when the responsibility for local of the legislation, although it may be possible in the interim,

registration services transfer to local authorities. More to assess the impact of the changes in a particular area eg

specifically, where the Secretary of State is satisfied that an births, marriages, etc.

authority is failing to comply with requirements he may

direct it: Measures might include take-up rates for internet

registration, timeliness of registration, availability of central

• To prepare or amend a performance plan. database, etc.

• To follow specified procedures in relation to a

performance plan. 5. Records

• To carry out a review of its exercise of specified

functions. 5.1 Purpose and intended effect of

measure

4.10.3 To provide the necessary independence for the

monitoring of local registration services, it is proposed that 5.2 Objective

the Inspectorate should no longer be a direct administrative 5.2.1 To modernise the system for capturing and holding

arm of the Registrar General. It has therefore been agreed in civil registration information.

principle that the newly constituted Inspectorate will be part

of the functions of the Audit Commission who will work in 5.2.2 To modernise the system for accessing and

partnership with the Registrar General. The transfer of the updating civil registration information.

Inspection service to the Audit Commission would allow

registration inspection to be co-ordinated with other 5.2.3 To put in place arrangements for archiving existing

paper registration records held locally.



272

Draft partial Regulatory Impact Assessment Annex E









5.3 Background would be the creation of a central database to hold

5.3.1 Fundamental to the reform is the proposal to move registration information for England and Wales that would

from a paper-based system to an electronic one. The be accessible centrally and locally via the Internet. New

proposals would affect the Registrar General, who has registrations would be captured directly onto a central

ultimate responsibility for registration in England and database. Existing records for people born in the last 100

Wales, and registration authorities who would be responsible years would also be electronically captured and included on

for records held locally. The reforms to the access framework the database. Where possible, records relating to the same

would also impact on all users of registration information person would be linked to create a ‘through life’ record.

(which include Central and Local Government, private

sector organisations, genealogists and the not-for-profit 5.3.8 An electronic system has the potential to make

sector, researchers and the public) as well as some businesses finding, identifying, matching and accessing records about

who supply goods and services to the Registration Service. individuals easier, quicker and more straightforward. In

turn, it could impact on the privacy of individuals and their

5.3.2 The Registration Acts (Births and Deaths families and make the potential for fraud greater. It is

Registration Act 1953, Marriage Act 1949 and Registration therefore necessary to ensure there is an appropriate access

Service Act 1953) are specific about the way registration framework in place for that system.

records should be held and the means by which registration

information can be accessed. The Acts apply to records held 5.3.9 The original paper records (the registers held

centrally by the Registrar General and locally by the local locally) are important historic records and form part of the

registration service. The existing legislative framework is national heritage. The register entries are the legal record of

based on principles first developed in the 1830s and does an event. Once registration records have been electronically

not take into account the changes to society or the captured it will be important to ensure the long-term

developments in modern technology. preservation of these paper records.



5.3.3 The law currently allows anyone to purchase a 5.4 Risk assessment

certificate of any birth, death or marriage that has taken 5.4.1 The current access system potentially impacts on

place in England and Wales as long as the entry has been the privacy of individuals and their families. Without proper

identified in an index. The law also covers the birth, death safeguards, the move to an electronic system would

and marriage records of British citizens that have to be exacerbate this as it would make finding and matching

registered overseas by British registering authorities, events information from different sources and different records

relating to HM Forces and those that have taken place on easier and quicker. Almost everyone in England and Wales

British registered planes, ships and installations. Unless comes into contact with the registration system at some

provided for in other law, registration information cannot be point in their lives. In 2001 there were approximately

disclosed in any other way. 595,000 births, 270,000 marriages and 530,000 deaths in

England and Wales.

5.3.4 The Registration Acts also prescribe how and when

registration records can be corrected or when events can be 5.4.2 There are risks for individuals, society, Government

re-registered. There are general provisions for the archiving and the public purse associated with leaving in place an out-

of records. dated system for civil registration. The current legislation

does not properly reflect the changes to society, the

5.3.6 This system allows for public scrutiny of the formation of families and the advances in technology that

records but does not protect the privacy of individuals or have evolved over the last century. There is a risk that the

their families. It treats all records the same and does not take legislation may not meet the needs of people and

into account the age of the record or the use that is being organisations it was intended to serve and could lead to a

made of the information. It can and has led to the loss of trust in the system.

fraudulent use of registration records. The fraudulent use of

certificates affects other Government Departments and 5.4.3 The Government has set stretching targets for

Agencies such as UK Passport Services (UKPS), the Driver modernising public services and delivering joined-up

and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and the Department Government services to citizens. It has also introduced e-

of Work and Pensions (DWP) as well as other public and government initiatives to drive forward the availability of

private sector organisations and individual members of services electronically. Registration information is at the

society. centre of many Government services (passports, driving

licences, benefits). Failure to modernise civil registration

5.3.7 It is proposed to move to an electronic system for would mean that some of these targets may not be met, not

civil registration in England and Wales. Central to this only for GRO but also for other Government Departments





273

Annex E Draft partial Regulatory Impact Assessment









and Agencies who use registration information as part of potential to reduce fraud by taking out an important source

their processes. of information from the public domain. The proposal is in

line with the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998 and

5.4.4 Identity and benefit fraud is a major problem for would go some way to meeting the modernising and e-

individuals, society, Government and the public purse. It government targets. Government Departments and Agencies

can be traumatic and emotionally distressing for those and other bodies such as financial services companies would

people whose records are used and for their families. It can continue to have access to the information they require.

have long ranging effects on credit-worthiness. Benefit fraud However, this option does not recognise the public interest

alone is estimated to cost approximately £2 billion per year. in registration information. It also goes against the drive

The current system for accessing registration records can towards openness and could be difficult to understand from

and has resulted in information being used for fraudulent the public’s point of view.

purposes.

5.5.7 Option – Open system.

5.4.5 Removing all registration information from the

public domain would be unacceptable. Registration 5.5.8 Like the option above, it would allow anyone to

information is used widely for all types of research, access registration records, but in an electronic environment.

including medical and demographic research. Developing a With the move to an electronic system, access to individual

closed system for civil registration could result in valuable records would be possible more quickly through search

information being taken out of the public domain. engines. This option would protect the public interest in

registration information but would not guarantee the right

5.5 Options and benefits of individuals to privacy.

5.5.1 This Regulatory Impact Assessment concentrates

on looking at the impact of changes to the framework for 5.5.9 It has the benefit of familiarity for users and

accessing registration records. This is a fundamental issue transparency. It treats everyone the same with regard to

and will have wide-ranging implications. All the other policy access. It would allow public scrutiny of the records and

reforms relating to records fall out of this issue. Five options recognises the public interest in registration records. It

have been identified for the development of an access follows the underlying principles of the Freedom of

framework. Information Act 2000. It will continue to give all users of

registration records access to the information they require.

5.5.2 Option – Do nothing. The move to an electronic platform will help to meet

modernisation and e-government targets. However, this

5.5.3 There are few advantages from maintaining the option does not address the issues of privacy, and would be

current paper-based system for accessing modern difficult to justify in a fully computerised system where

registration records, other than the benefit for users of finding and accessing information is much easier. It also

having a familiar system. There are, on the other hand, leaves the information open to fraudulent use by removing

substantial disadvantages. These include perpetuating a any safeguards.

system that does not reflect the needs of modern society or

of the users of the information, that is slow to react and does 5.5.10 Option – Hybrid system.

not make use of modern technology. Maintaining the status

quo would mean failure to meet Government targets for 5.5.11 This option would allow open access to most of the

modernising services and for the introduction of electronic information on modern records, namely those that identify

services. Also, this option does not fully address issues of the event. It would restrict access to information that is

fraud. personal, could cause harm, embarrassment or distress to

those named in the registration or related to them. The

5.5.4 Option – Restricted system. restricted information would be addresses, occupations and

cause of death. This framework would continue to give

5.5.5 This option assumes that registration records are access to the full record to those who needed it.

held electronically. It would mean that access to registration

records would be limited to the individual, their next of kin, 5.5.12 The benefits of this option are that it allows open

those given permission or those with prescribed access. It access to most of the information recorded in registration

would help to reduce fraud and protect the privacy of records, namely those that identify the event. This option

individuals and their families. balances openness and the public interest in registration

information with the rights of individuals to privacy. It

5.5.6 It has the benefit of protecting the privacy of those allows users of the information to access most of the record

named in the records and their families. It also has the without going through special procedures, whilst restricting





274

Draft partial Regulatory Impact Assessment Annex E









access to sensitive data to those who have a right and a 5.6.5 Despite this additional cost, businesses are likely to

recognised need to it. It follows the principles of both the make financial and other savings under the proposed model.

Data Protection and Freedom of Information Acts. The They would be able to streamline their processes by not

restricted information could be used as a check for fraud having to handle paper documents and by moving to an

prevention by organisations that use registration electronic system. This would result in efficiency savings and

information as part of their processes. lower unit costs per transaction that would go towards

offsetting any additional costs. In many cases they would

5.5.13 Option – Opting out system. also make savings from not having to return original

documents to customers. There would also be potential

5.5.14 This option would restrict the availability of some savings and other benefits from reductions in fraud.

of the information in registration records. It would allow

individuals to opt out of making information about 5.6.6 Professional genealogists (including probate

addresses, occupations and cause of death confidential. researchers) already bear the costs of purchasing certificates

and pass these costs on to customers. The proposed system

5.5.15 However, the system would be complex to would therefore have minimal financial impact on their

administer and difficult to understand for users and would business, and, depending on the charge for accessing records

therefore be unrealistic. It would be difficult if not on the central database, may actually result in savings. They

impossible to obtain consent from everyone named in the could also benefit from making improvements to their

records, particularly for existing records. Once someone had process and from quicker and easier access to records.

opted out of the restriction and the information was in the

public domain, it would be almost impossible to restrict that 5.6.7 There would continue to be statutory arrangements

information if the person later changed his or her mind. The for some Government Departments and Agencies to receive

complexity could lead to discrepancies and problems that registration records directly. For these organisations, it is

could, in the long run, undermine confidence in civil unlikely that the proposals would not result in any new

registration. costs. They would, however, be able to take advantage of

some of the other benefits, such as those related to efficiency

5.6 Costs savings.

5.6.1 The main compliance costs for businesses are

described below. 5.6.8 Modifying business processes to reflect the new

system and access arrangements.

5.6.2 Accessing records/restricted information on the

central database. 5.6.9 It has been described above that the proposals

would allow business to streamline and simplify their

5.6.3 The cost of supplying registration information business processes. In the short term, there would be costs to

currently falls mainly on the public who supply certificates business from making such modifications. For example,

when obtaining public and private sector services and there may be costs associated with providing Internet

benefits. Under the proposed system, the costs would connections or from modifying existing software to reflect

transfer to businesses, as they would be charged for accessing the new processes. It would be difficult to quantify what

records on the central database rather than the public. those costs would be as they would depend on the

Although on the face of it, there would appear to be a circumstance of the individual business. Most of the larger

transfer of costs from the public to business, it is in fact users of registration information already have well-developed

possible that businesses would pass on that cost to their technological systems so the impact may be small. However,

customers rather than absorb it. This would not so these costs could be seen as an investment and would be

obviously be the case for public sector businesses where beneficial in terms of improvements to service and

charges for a service are based on the actual cost of responsiveness.

delivering it. The charge has not yet been decided. It is not

expected to be more than the current cost of a certificate 5.6.10 Cost of obtaining consent to access records.

(£7) and probably substantially less.

5.6.11 Under the proposed system businesses would have

5.6.4 The impact of this proposal would depend on the to obtain consent to access records (including the restricted

size and nature of the business. For large users of registration information) on the central database. In theory, this could

information such as banks and insurance companies or even result in additional costs to them. In practice, consent could

public sector bodies, such as UKPS and DVLA, the costs be obtained via application forms or even directly at the

could be quite significant. time of registration so that the overall impact on businesses

would be small.





275

Annex E Draft partial Regulatory Impact Assessment









5.6.12 The benefits of having a system whereby 5.7.3 Professional genealogists would argue that they

individuals give consent for business and organisations to would be disproportionately affected by changes to the

access their records include the potential to reduce fraud. It access framework, particularly if these involved restrictions

would also ensure compliance with the provisions of the to the information. They would argue that registration

Data Protection Act 1998. Combating fraud is in the wider information is key to their business and cannot be obtained

public interest. elsewhere. The restricted system would have the most

significant impact on genealogists as it would make

5.6.13 Cost of applying to become Authorised Users. searching and identifying records most difficult. The narrow

list of those who would be able to give consent to access the

5.6.14 Large users of registration records would be able to records would also affect them. The other options however,

apply to become Authorised Users. Authorised Users would to make all registration information available or to allow

benefit from having the technological tools to access the genealogists to find relatives who can give them access to

central database. The system would not remove the need to other records would be more attractive to them. All the

obtain consent to access records. The costs of applying to options would allow registration information to be available

become Authorised users would be minimal. The costs of for legal purposes, for example to prove cases of intestacy.

accessing records on the database would still apply.

5.8 Small firms’ impact test

5.6.15 Other costs. See Appendix E1.



5.6.16 Making registration records available electronically 5.9 Competition assessment

over the Internet would give users more choice about how See Appendix E1.

and when they access registration records. For some groups

such as genealogists, this could result in a reduction in travel 5.10 Enforcement and sanctions

(currently they need to travel to places where they can access 5.10.1 To ensure that at least a minimum standard of

indexes to the records). For users based abroad it would service delivery is available locally, current national

reduce postage and other costs and improve responsiveness standards, that have been developed by the ‘Local

and availability. Government Association’ for self-monitoring, would be

developed and underpinned by a statutory code of practice.

5.6.17 Compliance cost for a typical business. The code of practice would include for example, the

standard of accommodation, availability and accessibility of

5.6.18 It is difficult to identify what a typical business services, IT installation and services, performance indicators

would be in relation to civil registration. Many of the large etc. The Registrar General would have responsibility, in

users of registration information are Government consultation with stakeholders, for developing and

Departments or Agencies or institutional users such as banks maintaining the national minimum standards that would be

and insurance companies. Other business and organisations specified in the code of practice. Additional best practice

may only use registration information infrequently, such as standards would not be mandatory but would be taken into

to verify the birth records of applicants during a recruitment account by the Inspectorate and also may influence Best

drive. Professional genealogists are likely to be affected in Value review conclusions.

the greatest numbers.

5.10.2 To ensure these standards are met there would

5.7 Equity and fairness continue to be an Inspectorate that would be responsible for

5.7.1 The move to an electronic system is unlikely to monitoring adherence to the code of practice, sharing good

affect any groups disproportionately as most businesses and practice, and reporting on standards. Where necessary the

organisations (including small businesses) already have Inspectorate would invoke further action to ensure services

electronic systems and Internet connections. are improved. Section 15 of the Local Government Act

1999, that provides for the Secretary of State to intervene

5.7.2 In our initial view, individual businesses would not where a local authority function is failing, would

be disproportionately affected by the proposals as any automatically apply when the responsibility for local

contracts between them and GRO are not critical to their registration services transfer to local authorities. More

overall business. The effect on Government Departments specifically, where the Secretary of State is satisfied that an

and Agencies and businesses as such as those in the financial authority is failing to comply with requirements he may

and insurance sectors of the proposals would be offset by the direct it:

benefits that they would be able to derive from

improvements to their processes and to the services they • To prepare or amend a performance plan.

deliver.





276

Draft partial Regulatory Impact Assessment Annex E









• To follow specified procedures in relation to a

performance plan.

• To carry out a review of its exercise of specified

functions.



5.10.3 To provide the necessary independence for the

monitoring of local registration services, it is proposed that

the Inspectorate should no longer be a direct administrative

arm of the Registrar General. It has therefore been agreed in

principle that the newly constituted Inspectorate will be part

of the functions of the Audit Commission who will work in

partnership with the Registrar General. The transfer of the

Inspection Service to the Audit Commission would allow

registration inspection to be co-ordinated with other

inspection regimes. The inspection processes would reflect

the provisions of the Best Value and performance assessment

frameworks including ensuring that a risk based approach to

inspection is adopted.



5.11 Consultation



Within Government

There has been wide consultation across relevant

Government Departments and Agencies about civil

registration reform. In respect of our proposals about issues

relating to registration records, amongst those departments

from whom ONS has had input are Office of the Deputy

Prime Minister, the Cabinet Office, the Office of the E-

Envoy, the National Archives, UKPS and DVLA.



Public Consultation

Previous consultation on aspects of those proposals was

carried out in 1999 in Registration: Modernising a Vital

Service. A summary of the responses to that consultation is

at Annex G.



5.12 Monitoring and review

Given the scope of the draft Regulatory Reform

(Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages) Order, the

proposed legislative changes will be phased in over a number

of years. Only when all the proposed changes have been

implemented will it be possible to measure the effectiveness

of the legislation, although it may be possible in the interim,

to assess the impact of the changes in a particular area eg

births, marriages, etc.



Measures might include take-up rates for internet

registration, timeliness of registration, availability of central

database, etc.









277

Annex E Competition Assessment









Appendix E1



Competition Assessment









Our preliminary research suggests that the affected markets Paper forms

can be roughly grouped according to which of the changes There are a limited number of large companies supplying

affect them: paper of this type, and so market dominance is potentially a

concern. However, the size of the contract affected is very

1. Local Authorities will be expected to ensure civil small relative to the size of the market and so the market

ceremonies such as baby naming and marriage structure will not be affected. Since the contract is awarded

reaffirmation are available. through open competition for a limited period, in the long

2. Paper records will no longer be kept, as all data is stored run no firm will be affected more than the others. Since the

electronically. effect of the change is to end the demand for this type of

3. Marriages will be possible in a larger number of form, the changes would not have a differential effect on

locations, as it will no longer be the premises that are existing printing companies compared with potential

approved, instead it will be the celebrant that is entrants and would not impose restrictions on firms choices.

approved. Whilst there has been change in printing methods there is

unlikely to be rapid technological change in the future.

Some records (addresses, occupations and cause of death)

will no longer be publicly available for people under 100 Certificate paper

years of age. The proposed changes will mean that eventually proof of

birth etc. will be done by accessing a website rather than

1. Local Authorities charging providing a certificate, and so the need for these certificates

Currently local authorities may not charge for discretionary will eventually cease. The paper used to certify births, deaths

services such as baby naming or marriage reaffirmation. and marriage is rare, with many advanced security features,

Consequently some have an arrangement with a private perhaps best compared with bank notes.

company to legally recover the costs of providing these

services, and some other non-governmental organisations In the UK there is only one company that supplies paper of

also operate in this field. The White Paper states that the this type and therefore market dominance may be an issue.

Government expects the local authorities to ensure the However, it is likely that the market is larger than the UK

availability of such services. However, the fundamental and that other firms compete with the UK firm for

change is due to the Local Government Bill 2003, which contracts. The UK firm has contracts with other bodies for

will permit local authorities to charge for discretionary similar products and it is hard to say how significant the

services, and as recognised there, local authorities will have contract affected by this regulation is to the firm. It is

to be aware of the impact that they have on competition. known that several other bodies that have contracts with the

company are also looking at moving to electronic

2. Computerisation documentation and that the company is looking to diversify

This change will affect a large number of markets. into products linked to electronic documentation, such as

smart cards. We do not, therefore, believe that the loss of

• There will be less demand for registers and other paper this contract will seriously affect competition in the market

forms by the local registration services. for certificate paper.

• Eventually there will be less demand for certificate

paper by the local registration services. Register boxes

• Register boxes will no longer be needed to store current The Registrar General is obliged to supply ‘a strong fire

registers. resistant box’ and approximately five years ago the type of

• The proposed changes will require different computer box was changed, and is now basically a fire-proof safe. It is

equipment from that currently used. not considered that any firm exerts a degree of market power

• List cleaning for the deceased will be done in the market for fire proof safes. The change in the type of

automatically by the GRO, rather than as present by registry box provided lead to a relatively large order to

private companies replace all the existing boxes, now that this has been carried





278

Competition Assessment Annex E









out the annual order of new boxes is likely to be relatively the consumer will face lower costs and so will benefit from

small. The proposed regulation changes would be likely to the changes. However, the lack of competition in the long

have no significant effects on the market structure as the size run may have an impact on productivity and innovation.

of future orders is likely to be very small relative to the size

of the market and no firm will be affected more than the 3. Approved premises

others. The change from approving a location to approving a

celebrant will affect approved locations. Currently approved

Computer equipment premises will lose their advantage over non-approved

Software providers will be affected both through the need premises and so the market will become more competitive

for new equipment to control the electronic storage and in most areas. The markets for wedding locations tends to

access of records and through the removal of the need to operate in a local rather than national geographical area.

transfer filmed images of registration entries onto printed What generally matters for competition is the availability of

certificates. local alternatives.



The current equipment to transfer filmed images of Whilst most areas have a large number of approved

registration entries onto printed certificates is supplied and premises, it is possible that there are some locations with

maintained by one company. However, the size of the only a few approved premises. Overall, the change is likely

contract is very small relative to the size of the company, so to affect competition in only a few small areas, and even in

the impact on the company, and the market in which it these areas the effect will be to increase competition.

operates is likely to be minimal.

4. Data withdrawal

The new software needed for the electronic records will be We have been able to identify three markets that may be

decided by competitive tender. There will be no restrictions affected by the proposed changes:

on firms’ choices, or differentiation between existing and

potential firms. However, there are only a few companies • Family history researchers.

that provide these types of service in the UK, and we would • Probate researchers.

like more information on the likely size of this contract • Marketing companies using information that is no

compared to the market as a whole. longer available.



List cleaning for the deceased Family history researchers

Local Authorities may have a contract with one of a small This is a large and diffuse market, with the vast majority of

number of companies who, via informed consent by the firms being sole traders and so market share is unlikely to be

recently bereaved, ensure the removal of the deceased from an issue. The proposed changes may make it harder for firms

mailing and other contact databases. Under the proposed to identify people, as there will be less information available

changes this could be done directly by the General Register from the registrars, although some of this will be available in

Office as a non-profit making monopoly. other ways. However, the changes are likely to affect all

firms equally and are unlikely to affect market structure.

The size of this market is uncertain, as is the number of Thus we have been unable to identify any areas where

firms in this market, and therefore we would like consultees competition may be adversely affected, although it is

to inform us of any potential concerns that they may have. possible that prices will increase given the increase in time

All existing and potential firms (with the exception of the needed to carry out the research.

GRO) will be affected equally by the proposed changes, and

the regulation could change the market structure. However, Probate researchers

it is not clear how many firms that carry out list cleaning are This market has three or four large players and so market

involved in other markets. share is likely to be an issue. The proposed changes may

make it harder for firms to identify people, as there will be

The benefits to the consumer of the change include lower less information available from the registrars, although some

cost and greater availability of the service, as it will of this will be available in other ways. It is possible that the

automatically be available in all areas, whereas now it higher costs of obtaining certain types of information will

depends on the local authority having a contract with a make it harder for small companies to operate in this market

private company. As much of the work will be done and so will alter the market structure as well as affect firms

automatically by software, once the register is updated, the differently. It is possible that there will be some restriction

procedure will be at a lower cost than at present. Along with on the ability of firms to choose the quality of their products

economies of scale and the likelihood of the list cleaning if some information is not available elsewhere. Technology

being done by a not-for-profit-monopolist this suggests that employed in the market, particularly IT and the internet,





279

Annex E Competition Assessment









has changed markedly over the past ten years and this is

likely to continue in the future.



The fundamental questions about the effect on competition

are will market structure change and are large firms affected

more than small firms. The key point is how much will the

proposed changes raise the cost of undertaking probate

research and how much will this disadvantage small firms?

To determine this will require further investigation and we

would welcome information from consultees on whether

they will be placed at a disadvantage relative to their

competitors.



Marketing

It is possible the way that some companies market their

products will be affected by the proposed changes. The two

most obvious ways are companies that use register

information for direct mailing and companies that place

promotional material in register offices.



The use of register information for direct mailing to

promote, for example, childcare products, is not an issue

because of the way that the registry currently makes the

information available solely in the form of individual

certificates. Therefore there is no significant impact on

direct mailing from the proposed withdrawal of

information.



The proposed change to permit registration online or by

phone will make the promotion of products by placing

promotional literature in register offices less effective.

However, this is currently not a significant part of any firm’s

promotional work and there exist other more common ways

of placing literature, for example through the NHS.

Therefore there is no significant impact on competition

from the proposed withdrawal of information.



Conclusion

The markets where the proposed changes will have a

significant impact on competition are probate research,

marriage premisess and list cleaning. The changes to the

marriage premises market will increase competition through

reducing the market power of some premises. List cleaning

is likely to be seriously affected, as a monopoly will be

effectively imposed, however this monopoly be able to

provide benefits to consumers outweighing the loss to

existing firms. Probate research is affected due to the

relatively concentrated market and the higher cost of

obtaining certain types of information under the proposed

changes, and may require further investigation.









280

Glossary Annex F









Annex F

Glossary

(The) 1906 Act Marriage with Foreigners Act 1906

(The) 1949 Act Marriage Act 1949

(The ) 1986 Regulations or the 1986 Regs Registration of Marriages Regulations 1986 [SI:1986/1442]

(The ) 1987 Regulations or the 1987 Regs Registration of Births and Death Regulations 1987[SI:1987/2088]

(The ) 1988 Act Local Government Finance Act 1988

(The) 1995 Regulations or the 1995 Regs The Marriage (Approved Premises) Regulations 1995 SI 1995/510

ACR Adopted Children’s Register

Active Record (Population) Records relating to people aged less than 100 years

Approved Premises A building which has been approved for the purposes of civil marriage by the Local Authority of the

area in which the building is situated

Archbishop of Canterbury’s Special Licence Ecclesiastical preliminary to marriage in the Church of England and Church in Wales

Authorised Person A person authorised by the Registrar General to register marriages

Authorised User In reference to access – eg Government departments and agencies that use registration data,

institutional users such as financial institutions and insurance companies and organisations and

professionals that require access for legal reasons

Bachelor Term used in civil registration (in England and Wales) to describe a man who has never been

married

Banns Ecclesiastical preliminary to marriage in the Church of England and the Church in Wales

BDRA 1953 Births Deaths Registration Act 1953

Best Value Government Initiative to improve standard of services within public authorities

British Registering Authorities British Consuls and High Commissions, HM forces overseas

Caveat Objection raised by a person who believes there is a legal reason why a marriage should not take

place



Celebrant Person licensed to perform wedding ceremonies.

Civil Funeral A non-religious funeral ceremony

Civil Marriage Marriage (usually) in a register office or approved premise, with no religious content

Civil Preliminaries The process where individuals have to attend a Register Office in person to give notice of their

intention to marry

Civil Registration The timely registration with government of birth, death and marriage events that takes place within

its boundaries

Common Licence Ecclesiastical preliminary to marriage in the Church of England and the Church in Wales

Communal Establishment Description of a place of death for deaths occurring in prisons, psychiatric hospital or words

conveying a similar meaning

Composition of Arrangements One of the reasons a member of the public would be precluded from being appointed a registration

officer – where a declared bankrupt had defaulted with agreed payments to their creditors or not

obtained a certificate of discharge

DWP Department for Work and Pensions

Detained – Marriage Detained person given permission to marry at place of detention (eg prison)

DVLA Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

Electronic Signature See Authentication Framework

Ecclesiastical Preliminaries Applies to marriage in the Church of England and the Church in Wales only. Legal procedures that

must be completed before a marriage can take place. Does not involve the superintendent registrar

Faculty Office Administers the issue of Archbishop of Canterbury’s Special Licences

GAF Government Authentication Framework – Means of providing identity for electronic

communication

General Synod An elected body of the Church of England which discusses important questions and takes major

decisions on behalf of all its members

GRO General Register Office

Historic Records Records relating to persons aged 100 years or over







281

Annex F Glossary









Housebound – Marriage Person too ill or disabled to attend marriage venue – allowed to marry at home

Inspectorate Administrative section of the GRO which aims to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the

local registration service. Involves inspecting the work of registration officers and liaison with local

authorities

IT Information Technology

Joint Church/State Preliminaries Proposed preliminary to marriage in the Church of England

Kiosk Booth from which access to local and central Government services can be accessed via the Internet

LACORS Local Authorities Co–ordinators of Regulatory Services. LACORS is a subsidiary body of the LGA

Language Line A telephone service that assists callers whose first language is not English

Local Government Association Organisation that formally represents local authorities in England

Local Service Provider A body or persons that has been assigned and has accepted responsibility to deliver local registration

services. It is usually but not necessarily the local registration authority

MA 1949 The Marriage Act 1949

Marriage Notice Book The book, held by their local Superintendent Registrar, where the public’s intention to marry is

recorded

Marriage Reaffirmation The facility for couples to celebrate by reaffirming their marriage vows

Military Chapels A building which has been registered for the purposes of marriage for those with a military

connection

Modernising Government/ E–Government The Government’s policy for improving the sharing of information and greater use of Information

Technology

Naming Ceremony Secular alternative for celebrating the naming of the individual

NHS National Health Service

Notice of Marriage The public is required in law to give notice of their intent to marry, in person to their local

Superintendent Registrar. This process is called giving ‘notice of marriage’

ONS Office for National Statistics

Outstation A place where registration work can be carried out as designated in a Local Scheme

Place of Religious Worship A place certified by the Registrar General, under the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855, as a

place which is primarily used for public religious worship

Preliminaries to Marriage The legal procedures which must be completed before a marriage can take place

Prescribed Fee Charge for goods or services set out in law

Principal Officer Superintendent Registrar, Additional Superintendent Registrar, Registrar of Births and Deaths

Proper Officer Senior Local Authority official who is responsible for certain local arrangements under the

provisions of the Registration Service Act 1953

Public Purse Money raised by the Government through public funds

Qualified Informant Those people with a legal duty to provide information relating to births and deaths

Quarterly Copies Copies of registrations that have been made, submitted to the Registrar General every three months

RBD Registrar of Births and Deaths

Register Office Office of the Superintendent Registrar

Registered Building A building which has been registered for the purposes of non–conformist religious marriage (i.e.

not Church of England or Church in Wales)

Registrar General (Also RG) Head of Registration Service in England and Wales and also head of ONS and the National

Statistician

Registrar General’s Licence The Marriage (Registrar General’s Licence) Act 1970 provides for a marriage to take place in

circumstances where one of the parties is seriously ill and not expected to recover and cannot be

moved to a place where the marriage could normally be solemnised. An authority for marriage

issued under the above provisions is called a Registrar General’s Licence

Registration Acts Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 (BDRA 1953) Marriage Act 1949 (MA 1949)

Registration Service Act 1953 (RSA 1953)

Registration Authority A local authority that has the responsibility for arranging or providing local registration services

Registration District(s) One or more areas within a Local Authoritity’s boundaries designated to deliver registration

services. There may be only one registration district within a local authority. See also sub-district

Registration Officers Officials currently providing civil registration services at a local level

Religious Marriage Marriage in a registered building, with religious content

Remote Registrations Registrations via other means than face to face eg Internet, telephone

Repository A secure area within each Register Office that is used to house deposited registers

Revenue Support Grant Government grant paid to local authorities based on a range of criteria eg population









282

Glossary Annex F









Rites and Ceremonies Used to describe the content of a religious marriage ceremony eg the rites and ceremonies of the

Methodists

RSA 1953 Registration Service Act 1953

Schedule Authority to marry

‘Scheme’ – Local Registration The requirement that determines amongst other things the number of registration districts in a

local authority, staffing levels and the location of offices

Secular No religious content

Self Regulation The local authority will have duty for provision of registration services. Along with the Inspectorate

they will provide a framework by which to measure the delivery of the service

Special Licence See Archbishop of Canterbury’s Special Licence

Spinsterp Term used in civil registration (in England and Wales) to describe a woman who has never been

married

SR Superintendent Registrar

State Only Preliminaries See Civil Preliminaries

Sub-District Geographical limits of a Registrar of Births , Deaths and Marriages statutory responsibilities

Superintendent Registrar’s Authority A document confirming that the preliminaries to marriage have been completed and that no

impediment to the proposed marriage has been shown to exist

Superintendent Registrar’s Certificate See Superintendent Registrar’s Authority

‘Supporting Families’ Government initiative setting out its policy proposals for supporting families

Through Life Record Database holding linked key life records relating to an individual (eg birth, marriage, change of

name)

TUPE Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations that provide protection against

redundancy and changes to terms and conditions of employment for employees in the transfer of

business or service or part of it to a new owner or administration

UKPS United Kingdom Passport Service









283

Annex G Summary of the views expressed by respondents to Registration: Modernising a Vital Service









Annex G

Summary of the views expressed by

respondents to Registration: Modernising

a Vital Service

Individuals, groups and representative bodies submitted events to public and private sector organisations. The

almost 1,000 responses to the public consultation exercise consensus was that the private sector should be charged for

with over 9,000 replies to individual questions. The such notifications.

following is a summary of their views.

A number of those in favour felt that the passing on of

Q1. Should it be possible to register births and deaths information to other agencies should be on the basis of

in a range of ways? (2.2) informed consent while a few thought it should be

mandatory.

There were 450 responses to this question. Of these, 300

(67 per cent) were in favour of making it possible to register Q4. Should the registration service become a focal

births and deaths in a range of ways. point for services linked to birth and bereavement?

(2.3)

The general feeling was that although alternative methods

should be made available, personal attendance should still be This question elicited 237 responses of which 218 were in

an option for those who prefer it. Suggestions included a favour of the registration service becoming a focal point for

registration system without geographical boundaries, services linked to birth and bereavement. The most popular

hospitals and coroners entering data for registration onto a view was that the registration service should become a one-

central database (without the need for an informant). Also, stop-shop for such services. Also, that the service need not

basing registrars in hospitals and having multi-functional provide counselling but could provide leaflets or direct

officers whose duties are not solely registration duties were people to the relevant services or experts.

suggested. Those not in favour of the idea cited loss of

quality of data as the main reason. Q5. Should there be national standards for birth and

death registration services and if so what should these

be? How should they be enforced? (2.4)

Q2. Should electronic links be developed with

hospitals, coroners, undertakers, crematoria and Of the 252 responses, 241 (96 per cent) supported the idea

government departments? How should they be used? of national standards. Ideas on standards included privacy,

(2.3) confidentiality, staff accessibility and availability, provision

of equipment, accommodation, quality of training,

Of the 359 responses to this question, 335 (93 per cent) customer care, technical knowledge and accuracy.

expressed support for the development of electronic links.

The general feeling was that such links would speed up and Suggestions for enforcement included a system of

improve service delivery for the customer. It was stressed inspection/audit, severe fines, regional inspectorate, ‘Ofreg’

that there would need to be appropriate safeguards in the or independent inspectorate, inspection agency drawn form

system to prevent fraud. Suggested links included UKPS practitioners and GRO.

and DWP.

Q6. Would quality of information be affected by

Q3. Should the registration service offer people a changing the system? (2.4)

facility to notify the birth/death or marriage to public

and private sector organisations? (2.3) There were 201 responses to this question. The majority of

respondents (72 per cent) expressed concern that the quality

Of the 244 responses 220 expressed the view that the of information would be affected. The remainder thought

registration service should offer people a facility to notify that quality could be maintained if proper controls were put

in place.



284

Summary of the views expressed by respondents to Registration: Modernising a Vital Service Annex G









Q7. Should people be able to marry anywhere? (3.1) bringing up children or the legal status of unmarried

parents? (3.4)

There were 373 responses to this question. The majority of

respondents (83 per cent) thought that people should either Of the 396 responses to this question, 348 (88 per cent)

be able to get married anywhere or, more popularly, that a supported the idea of a wider role for registrars.

greater choice of venues should be provided.

Although there was an overwhelming majority for the

The main arguments against marriage anywhere were the provision of supportive services there was no consensus as to

need to consider health and safety, accessibility for the what these services might be. Some respondents felt that

public and the need to maintain the solemnity of the baby-naming ceremonies were acceptable but not secular

ceremony. The most popular suggestions for retaining some funerals and vice versa. Many felt that the registration

control were for the introduction of one-off licences or service should not provide counselling but should direct

introducing approved celebrants in line with the Scottish customers to existing counselling services. The issues of

system. proper training and funding for these services were also

raised.

There was strong support from registration officers for the

introduction of universal civil preliminaries and the removal Q11. Is there scope for a more integrated approach for

of the residential requirement for marriages in registered marriages? (3.5)

buildings.

Of the 192 responses to this question 92 per cent favoured

Q8. Should there be national standards for civil links being created with divorce and birth and death

marriage ceremonies and what should these be? (3.1) databases to help verify details in marriage notices. The

electronic notification to other public and private sector

Of the 240 responses to this question, 227 (94 per cent) agencies following the marriage was also mentioned subject

expressed the view that there should be national standards. to proper safeguards being in place. Those against felt that

Suggestions for the national standards included standards set the onus should remain with the couple.

by the couple, accommodation, length of ceremony,

enhancements offered routinely and a reasonable service at a Q12. What level of access should be available to

reasonable price. Several respondents suggested that the registration records of varying ages? What uses are

hours between which a marriage could take place should acceptable? How should historic records be defined?

either be extended or the restriction removed altogether. (4.3)



Q9. Should it be possible for the preliminaries to There was overwhelming support for greater access to

marriage to be undertaken in a range of ways? (3.2) historic records. Suggestions included using the Internet or

copies on CD-ROM, microfilm or microfiche being made

Sixty-four per cent of respondents thought that it should be available at county record offices or register offices.

possible for marriage preliminaries to be undertaken in a Respondents opined that giving access to the historic records

range of ways. The remainder preferred the retention of the and removing the need to purchase a certified copy of an

need for notice to be given in person. Among the responses entry should greatly reduce costs and hence the fee.

to this question there was a call for universal civil

preliminaries and the removal of the residential qualification Respondents to this question were fairly evenly divided on

for church marriages. There was also support for adoption of how historic records should be defined. 50 per cent thought

the Scottish schedule system. that it should be records over 75 years with 46 per cent

opting for 100 years. The remainder suggested different

Those against offering a range of ways for giving notice felt definitions depending on the type of event eg 100 years for

that this would not sit well with the changes being births, 50 years for marriages and deaths. Those in favour of

introduced by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The the 100 years cut-off reasoned on the basis of peoples

Act requires both parties to give notice in person to the increased life expectancy and the parallel with census data.

superintendent registrar. They also felt that personal

attendance meant that there would be greater commitment Q13. Should paper certificates, other than for personal

on the part of the couple. commemorative use, be replaced by electronic transfer

of information to approved users on request? (4.3)

Q10. Should the registration service provide

supportive services eg baby-naming, reaffirmation of Seventy-six per cent of those who responded to this question

vows, information on coping with bereavement or did not wish to see paper certificates disappear altogether.





285

Annex G Summary of the views expressed by respondents to Registration: Modernising a Vital Service









They felt that there would continue to be a need for heritage and should be open to the public in microfilm,

certificates for official purposes eg for use abroad. Many of microfiche or digital format. There was almost unanimous

those respondents acknowledged that electronic transfer of agreement that the original records should be stored locally

registration was inevitable but felt that customers should be at county record offices, local register offices or in other

able to choose. local archives. A number of respondents said that the records

should be accorded public record status and become the

Q14. Should birth registration records be updated and responsibility of the Public Record Office.

if so with what information? (4.4)

Q18. Should birth registration cater for a wider variety

Of the 396 responses 357 (90 per cent ) favoured some form of circumstances. If so, what should they be? (5.2)

of updating or linking of registration records. Suggestions

for updates included linking deaths with births, marriages Ninety per cent of respondents supported a more flexible

with divorces and change of sex. The adoption of the birth system for registering births.

entry as the basis for a life record, showing any changes of

name or status, was the most popular suggestion put The most popular suggestions for change included

forward. simplifying late birth registration, making it possible for a

registration officer to attest a declaration equivalent to the

Q15. What contribution should civil registration make present form 16, providing better access to the service by

to proving identity and how? (4.4) offering different ways of registering (referring back to

question 1) and extending or offering more flexible opening

Eighty per cent of the respondents to this question said that hours.

registration could have a vital role to play in providing proof

of identity. The most popular suggestion was to use the ‘life Q19. Should death registration cater for a wider

record’ suggested at Q14. Others included issuing a unique variety of circumstances. If so, what should they be?

identifier to each individual at birth, issuing an ID card at (5.3)

birth and issuing the NI number at birth.

Ninety per cent of respondents supported the idea of a

The remaining 20 per cent felt that the matter of identity service able to cater for a wider variety of circumstances. The

was either outside the scope of this review or that the most popular idea was for a life partner to be accepted as a

registration service should have no part in it. A few qualification for a death informant. Several responses

expressed the fear that the review could founder if it was included reference to same-sex partners and also executors

linked to the question of identity. being allowed to register. Other popular suggestions were for

an out of hours (on-call) service to be made standard,

Q16. How should the balance be struck between an extension of opening hours generally and facility to register

individual’s privacy and public interest in registration certain deaths at sea. Over 50 respondents said that a

records? deceased man’s wife’s details should be included in the death

entry (see question 20).

The most popular suggestion (40 per cent) for balancing

privacy with public interest was to restrict access to the Q20. What information should be recorded in the

recent records. Many respondents also said that there should register and on certificates? (5.5)

be no exploitation of registration records for commercial

purposes. They felt that access to records should be for The most popular ideas elicited by this question related to

official purposes with the public fully informed about who marriage entries. Over 30 per cent wanted to see the

had access and why. Access by approved users or with the mother’s details as well as the father’s being included in the

consent of the individual was also suggested by a small entry and 25 per cent suggested including stepparents where

number of respondents. A few respondents expressed the applicable. The inclusion of the date and place of birth of

view that full access to the records should be allowed unless the parties and the addresses of witnesses were also

a good reason could be given as to why privacy should be mentioned.

maintained.

Suggestions for additions to the birth register included time

Q17. What should the arrangements be for historic and day of birth, date and place of marriage of parents [if

registers? (4.6) applicable], NHS no of parents, parents’ dates of birth, and

donor information [where applicable] and subsequent

This question attracted 539 responses. The overwhelming changes to parents [eg step-parents].

view was that the historic registers are part of our national





286

Summary of the views expressed by respondents to Registration: Modernising a Vital Service Annex G









Suggestions for inclusion in the death register included the Q24. Who should provide marriage, baby naming,

NI and NHS number of the deceased, time and day of reaffirmation of vows? (7.2)

death, details of the deceased parents and the intended place

of disposal. Other suggestions for inclusion were the marital Many respondents combined questions 23 and 24 resulting

status of the deceased, details of a deceased man’s wife and in a similar split in opinion as to who should run the

the last known address of the deceased. The option of a service. However, there was almost total agreement that

shortened form of death certificate with the cause of death birth and death registration should not be split from the

excluded was a particularly popular idea. more ceremonial duties involved with marriage and any new

services such as baby naming ceremonies.

Q21. Should there be greater flexibility to correct

errors in registration records? (5.6) Q25. How should the registration service adopt wider

use of technology in service delivery? (7.4)

Of the 249 responses to this question over 95 per cent

contained the view that there should be greater flexibility to The responses to this question concentrated mainly on how

correct errors in entries particularly by way of local wider use of technology could improve recording, storage

discretion/authority. Several respondents mentioned and retrieval of records. Many of the public response

specifically minor spelling errors copied from medical highlighted better access to the historic records. The most

certificates of cause of death. Other suggestions were that popular view was that of creating a central database of

marriage corrections should be treated the same as birth and births, marriages and deaths with local and Internet access.

death corrections, that certificates should be free from The view of many was that the original records should be

correctional notes and that a fresh registration should be computerised and copied onto microfilm. Any partnership

offered where the error was embarrassing or sensitive. to achieve this should be with the ‘not for profit’ sector in

order to keep the cost to the user down. Compiling

Q22. Should there be a more flexible and integrated computerised indexes that could contain more information

approach to the collecting and sharing of information and that could be made widely available, providing links

within government? (6.2) with other records such as the Census and viewing entries

on-line were also suggested.

155 of the 164 respondents to this question were in favour

of a more flexible and integrated approach. The majority Ideas for more recent records included introducing a swipe

view was that the collecting and sharing of information in ID card, the ability to issue certificates from any register

this way was a legitimate use of the registration system office regardless of where the event took place, transferring

particularly as it would help detect and prevent fraud. Other data between government departments, remote ordering

views expressed were that questions should not become too facility for certificates and record linkage.

intrusive or place a burden on the individual as this might

deter people from providing information. Also, there would Q26. What are acceptable uses of civil registration

need to be safeguards in place to protect people’s privacy. records? (7.4)



Q23. Who should provide birth and death registration The overwhelming response was that registration records

services? (7.2) should not be made available in bulk to private sector

organisations and that they should not be used for

Forty per cent of respondents recommended that local commercial gain in any way.

authorities should run the registration service. They argued

that it was a local service with varying needs in different Suggestions for their use included providing other

parts of the country to which local authorities were sensitive. government departments with information, a means of

35 per cent opted for a centrally run service or said only identification, medical and academic research, genealogy,

that registration officers should continue to provide the social and economic research. Respondents were mindful of

service. The remainder gave no specific preference or the need to protect the privacy of the individual. It was

suggested alternatives such as the health service. suggested that individuals or their descendants should give

permission for the information to be used.

Many respondents referred to the need for national

standards for a national service. The consensus was that this Q27. Should the registration of key life events, remain

could only be achieved through administration and free of charge? If so, should other fees be set at a level

inspection by a central body. Many also referred to the need to ensure full cost recovery across registration services

to remove the current demarcations created by the statutory as a whole? (8.2)

status of officers. The need for a proper management

structure was widely recognised.



287

Annex G Summary of the views expressed by respondents to Registration: Modernising a Vital Service









Of the 360 responses to this question only 10 thought that

the registration of births and deaths should attract a fee to

offset the cost. Of the 350 who thought this service should

remain free, the majority felt that the charges should be

levied for any additional services provided by the registration

service. A number also considered that fees from other

services should be used to offset the cost of birth and death

registration to enable the whole service to become self-

financing.



Q28. Should there be a standard marriage fee? If so

how should it be set? (8.2)



Over 90 per cent of respondents supported the view that

there should be a standard fee for a standard marriage

ceremony. Many respondents added that there should be a

sliding scale of fees above the minimum to meet the cost of

any enhancements and that these fees should be set locally.

A few thought that the basic fee should be set locally as

circumstances and costs varied across the country.









288

Responding to this consultation document Annex H









Annex H

Responding to this consultation document

1. The list of people/bodies to whom this paper has 5. Finally, you should be aware that the Parliamentary

been sent is at Annex B. We will be pleased to accept Committees will be able to request sight of your

responses from anyone. Please feel free to pass this representation as originally submitted. This is a safeguard

consultation document on. It is available on the following against attempts to bring improper influence to bear on the

web-sites: Minister. We envisage that, in the normal course of events,

www.statistics.gov.uk/registration this provision will only be used rarely and on an exceptional

www.ukonline.gov.uk basis.

www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/regulation/act/condoc.htm

6. The Parliamentary Committees dealing with orders

The contact point for enquiries, hard copies and the Welsh under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 have requested that

version is as in paragraph 8. Representative groups when a note explaining the Parliamentary process for orders made

responding should provide a summary of the people and under the Act to be annexed to all consultation papers so

organisations they represent. that everyone understands when and to whom they are able

to put their views should they wish to do so. This is attached

2. The response form is at Annex I. Should you need at Annex C.

to, you can continue your answers on a separate sheet of

paper. If you do so, please write your name and address at 7. A draft Regulatory Impact Assessment is attached

the top of the sheet and state the question number to which at Annex E.

you are responding. An electronic version of the form can be

found on the web-sites listed in paragraph 1. We would 8. Responses to this consultation document should be

encourage responses to be submitted using the electronic made no later than 24 October 2003 and sent to:

response form. Responses can be typed directly in the Lorraine Cole

electronic response form and submitted via email to the Civil Registration Review Consultation

email address given at paragraph 8. Room 126

General Register Office

3. Normal practice will be for details of Smedley Hydro

representations received in response to this consultation Trafalgar Road

document to be disclosed, or for respondents to be Southport

identified. While the Act provides for non-disclosure of Merseyside PR8 2HH

representations on request, the Minister is required to

include the names of all respondents in the list submitted to Fax: 01633 652 953

Parliament alongside the draft Order. You should note that: e-mail: registration.review@ons.gov.uk



❥ If you request that your representation is not disclosed, 9. Any queries about this consultation document

the Minister will not be able to disclose the contents of should be addressed to Lorraine Cole (contact details given

your representation without your express consent and, if in paragraph 8) or by telephoning 0151 471 4379 or 0151

the representation concerns a third party, their consent 471 4528.

too. Alternatively, the Minister may disclose the content

of your representation but only in such a way as to 10. Complaints about the handling of this consultation

anonymise it. process should be made in writing to:

• In all cases where your representation concerns Kieron Mahony

information that may be damaging to the interests of a Civil Registration Review

third party, the Minister is not obliged to pass it on to Room 117

Parliament if he or she does not believe it to be true or General Register Office

is unable to obtain the consent of the third party. Smedley Hydro

Trafalgar Road

4. Please identify any information which you or any Southport

other person involved do not wish to be disclosed. Merseyside PR8 2HH





289

This is a blank page.

Annex H Responding to this consultation document









290

Response form Annex I









Annex I

Response form



Respondent details Please return by 24 October 2003 to:



Name: Lorraine Cole

Organisation: Civil Registration Review Consultation

Address: Room 126

General Register Office

Smedley Hydro

Trafalgar Road

Town/City: Southport

Merseyside PR8 2HH

County/Postcode:

Telephone: email: registration.review@ons.gov.uk

Fax:

E-mail:





Tick this box if you are requesting non-disclosure of your response.





If you are continuing your answers on a separate sheet, please state your name, address and the question number

to which you are replying.









291

Annex I Response form









Birth registration



In respect of the registration of births:

1. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?









2. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably

expect to continue?









3. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of

proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.









4. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?









5. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from the proposals?









292

Response form Annex I









Still–birth registration



In respect of the registration of still-births:

6. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?









7. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably

expect to continue?









8. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of

proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.









9. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?









10. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from the proposals?









293

Annex I Response form









Death registration



In respect of the registration of deaths:

11. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?









12. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably

expect to continue?









13. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of

proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.









14. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?









15. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from the proposals?









294

Response form Annex I









Registration of births, still–births and deaths in Welsh



In respect of the proposal for the registration of events in Welsh:

16. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?









17. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably

expect to continue?









18. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of

proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.









19. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?









20. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from the proposals?









295

Annex I Response form









Giving notice of marriage



In respect of giving notice of marriage:

21. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?









22. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably

expect to continue?









23. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of

proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.









24. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?









25. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from the proposals?









296

Response form Annex I









Issue of superintendent registrar’s authority



In respect of issuing the marriage schedule:

26. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?









27. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably

expect to continue?









28. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of

proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.









29. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?









30. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from the proposals?









297

Annex I Response form









Venue for marriage and appointment of celebrants



In respect of the venues for marriage and the appointment of celebrants:

31. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?









32. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably

expect to continue?









33. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of

proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.









34. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?









35. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from the proposals?









298

Response form Annex I









Form of marriage ceremony and officials



In respect of the form of marriage ceremony and officials:

36. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?









37. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably

expect to continue?









38. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of

proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.









39. Do you consider there to be any costs and savings associated with these proposals that have not been identified?









40. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from the proposals?









299

Annex I Response form









Registration of marriage



In respect of the registration of marriages:

41. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?









42. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably

expect to continue?









43. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of

proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.









44. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?









45. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from the proposals?









300

Response form Annex I









Marriage of the housebound and detained



In respect of marriages at the residence of the housebound or detained:

46. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?









47. Do the proposals prevent anyone from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably

expect to continue?









48. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of

proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.









49. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?









50. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from the proposals?









301

Annex I Response form









Registrar General’s Licence



In respect of marriages following the issue of a Registrar General’s Licence:

51. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?









52. Do the proposals prevent anyone from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably

expect to continue?









53. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of

proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.









54. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?









55. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from the proposals?









302

Response form Annex I









Preliminaries for marriage according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England



In respect of the preliminaries for marriage according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of

England:

56. Do the proposals afford the necessary protections for those affected?









57. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably

expect to continue?









58. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of

proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.









59. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?









60. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from the proposals?









303

Annex I Response form









Marriage ceremony and registration according to the rites and ceremonies of the

Church of England



In respect of the solemnisation and registration of marriages according to the rites and ceremonies of

the Church of England:

61. Do the proposals afford the necessary protections for those affected?









62. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably

expect to continue?









63. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of

proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.









64. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?









65. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from the proposals?









304

Response form Annex I









Marriage ceremony and registration according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church in

Wales



In respect of the form and registration of marriages according to the rites and ceremonies of the

Church in Wales:

66. Do the proposals afford the necessary protections for those affected?









67. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might

reasonably expect to continue?









68. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of

proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.









69. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?









70. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from the proposals?









305

Annex I Response form









Marriage in England and Wales, where one of the couple is living on board ship



In respect of the preliminaries for marriage in England and Wales where either the bride or groom is

living on board ship:

71. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?









72. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might

reasonably expect to continue?









73. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests or

proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.









74. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?









75. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from these proposals?









306

Response form Annex I









Marriage in a foreign country



In respect of the giving of notice when someone wishes to obtain a certificate of no impediment:

76. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?









77. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably

expect to continue?









78. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of

proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.









79. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?









80. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from the proposals?









307

Annex I Response form









New services



In respect of new services:

81. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?









82. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably

expect to continue?









83. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of

proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.









84. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?









85. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from the proposals?









308

Response form Annex I









‘Through life’ records



In respect of the proposals to create ‘through life’ records by linking registration records:

86. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?









87. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably

expect to continue?









88. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of

proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.









89. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?









90. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from the proposals?









309

Annex I Response form









Correcting and updating records



In respect of correcting and updating records:

91. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?









92. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably

expect to continue?









93. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of

proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.









94. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?









95. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from the proposals?









310

Response form Annex I









Classification and computerisation, the central database and records management



In respect of the proposals for classifying and computerising registration records and of records

management:

96. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?









97. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably

expect to continue?









98. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of

proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.









99. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?









100. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from the proposals?









311

Annex I Response form









Access



In respect of accessing registration records:

101. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?









102. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably

expect to continue?









103. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of

proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.









104. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?









105. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from the proposals?









312

Response form Annex I









Data sharing and data transfer



In respect of data sharing and data transfer:

106. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?









107. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably

expect to continue?









108. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of

proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.









109. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?









110. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from the proposals?









313

Annex I Response form









Historic records



In respect of historic records:

111. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?









112. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably

expect to continue?









113. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of

proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.









114. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?









115. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from the proposals?









314

Response form Annex I









Registers



In respect of the proposals for handling existing registers:

116. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?









117. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably

expect to continue?









118. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of

proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.









119. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?









120. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from the proposals?









315

Annex I Response form









Overseas and miscellaneous records



In respect of overseas and miscellaneous records:

121. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?









122. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably

expect to continue?









123. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of

proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.









124. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?









125. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from the proposals?









316

Response form Annex I









Statistical information obtained from registration



In respect of the changes proposed to the information obtained for statistical purposes and, in some

cases, to the arrangements for obtaining the information:

126. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?









127. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably

expect to continue?









128. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of

proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.









129. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?









130. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from the proposals?









317

Annex I Response form









The Registrar General and the General Register Office



In respect of the changes proposed to the role of the Registrar General and the General Register

Office:

131. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?









132. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably

expect to continue?









133. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of

proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.









134. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?









135. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from the proposals?









318

Response form Annex I









Local authority responsibilities



In respect of the changes to local authority responsibilities:

136. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?









137. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably

expect to continue?









138. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of

proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.









139. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?









140. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from the proposals?









319

Annex I Response form









Sanctions, national standards, compliance and inspection



In respect of the changes to sanctions, national standards, compliance and inspection:

141. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?









142. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably

expect to continue?









143. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of

proportionately, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.









144. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?









145. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from the proposals?









320

Response form Annex I









Status of registration officers



In respect of the changes to the status of registration officers:

146. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?









147. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably

expect to continue?









148. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of

proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.









149. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?









150. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from the proposals?









321

Annex I Response form









Finance and charges



In respect of the changes proposed to finance and charges:

151. Do the proposals maintain the necessary protections for those affected?









152. Do the proposals prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably

expect to continue?









153. The proposals impose a number of new burdens. We would welcome your views on whether the tests of

proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied in respect of these new burdens.









154. Do you have any views on the costs and savings identified?









155. Are there any other benefits that would be gained from the proposals?









322

Response form Annex I









Supplementary questions



In respect of birth registration:

S1. With regard to the list of qualified informants to a birth registration, do you have a view on a more appropriate

description for ‘occupier of the house’?









In respect of still-birth registration:

S2. With regard to the list of qualified informants to a still-birth registration, do you have a view on a more appropriate

description for ‘occupier of the house’?









In respect of death registration:

S3. With regard to the list of qualified informants to a death registration, do you have a view on a more appropriate

description for ‘occupier of the house’, ‘inmate of the house’ or ‘person causing the burial or cremation’?









In respect of marriages following the issue of a Registrar General‘s Licence:

S4. Do you have any views on the proposed arrangements for the payment of fees for marriages that take place

following the issue of such a licence?









323

Annex I Response form









In respect of ‘through life’ records:

S5. Do you have any views on the proposals for accessing the linking information on ‘through life’ records?









In respect of accessing registration records:

S6. Do you have any views on the proposed definition of family in respect of accessing registration records?









S7. Do you have any views on the proposed list of Authorised Users?









In respect of the general consultation on statistics:

S8. We would welcome your views on the proposed revisions to the collection of statistical information at the registration

of a birth, with an indication of the changes you would regard as being most important and the reasons for this view.









S9. We would welcome your views on the proposed revisions to the collection of statistical information at the registration

of a death, with an indication of the changes you would regard as being most important and the reasons for this view.









324

Response form Annex I









S10. We would welcome your views on the proposed revisions to the collection of statistical information at the

preliminaries to, and registration of, a marriage, with an indication of the changes you would regard as being most

important and the reasons for this view.









In respect of sanctions, national standards, compliance and inspection:

S11. Views are welcome about issues to be included in the code of practice, its usefulness as a management tool and its

relationship with any Best Practice Guide.









In respect of finance and charges:

S12. It would be useful to receive local authorities’ views on the extent to which their costs could reduce in line with the

shift in demand for face-to-face meetings.









S13. Views are invited on the level of fees set out in Appendix 11D – New statutory charges for registration services









325