HL Deb 02 July 1996 vol 573 cc1431-3

11.5 p.m.

Lord Henley rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th May be approved [25th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that these regulations be approved. The draft order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 is concerned with removing the burden imposed on the recently bereaved from having to travel to give information for the registration of deaths and still-births. This particular order has now, with the exception of these particular proceedings, completed all the appropriate stages in both Houses. Its purpose is to amend the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, which I understand follows from legislation going back as far as the 1830s. That particular Act was designed to provide for the registration of deaths and still-births by means of a declaration of the particulars to be registered. Currently, relatives and others are obliged to attend before the registrar of births and deaths where—I stress the word "where" in terms of place—the death occurred to give information for the registration of a death or a still-birth. The proposed change would allow them to choose to travel to the district where the event occurred—as they must at present—or to visit their local or other registrar.

We are satisfied that the measure will not reduce the necessary protection. Deaths and still-births will continue to be registered in the district where they occurred so that they remain traceable for many years to come. I believe that this is a minor and sensible piece of deregulation and will, as I said earlier, significantly reduce the burden on some of those recently bereaved. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th May be approved [25th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee.]—(Lord Henley).

Lord Eatwell

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this enormously sensible measure. Indeed, it is so sensible and worth while that the one major criticism that one could make of the Government is to ask why they have not brought it forward earlier. The problem is, of course, that from these Benches I could ask why the Labour Government did not bring it forward earlier and why successive Conservative Governments did not bring it forward earlier either.

I should like to refer to two points which the Deregulation Committee asked about this measure. The first concerns the new form—the medical certificate of the cause of death—which doctors will now be required to fill in, which apparently will give information more appropriate for the new system of registration which no longer requires relatives to travel to the place of death, which is entirely sensible. The Government told the Deregulation Committee that the revised guidance notes for doctors were being prepared. I wonder whether the noble Lord could assure us that those revised notes are now available and will be available to doctors when this order comes into force.

Secondly, the Deregulation Committee asked that information about the cause of death could now be copied from the medical certificate—the new form of certificate which doctors are being asked to produce—and this will require amendments to secondary legislation. Could the noble Lord tell us whether those amendments will come before this House and, if so, when?

Lord Henley

On the first point raised by the noble Lord, relating to the number of different governments that have been before us, not just since 1953 but sometime in the 1830s, it is not Conservative Governments nor Labour Governments, nor even Liberal Governments, but possibly goes back to Whig governments and others—all of them have failed to address this matter and we all stand to blame.

The noble Lord also asked when guidance would be available on the concerns raised by the Deregulation Committee in another place. I can give the noble Lord an assurance that that guidance will be available in due course and certainly at the appropriate moment.

He also asked whether amendments to secondary legislation would have to come before this House in due course. My understanding at the moment is that, if the amendments are needed, those amendments would not require the affirmative resolution procedure and would be matters for negative resolution. But I shall take advice on that particular point and, if I am wrong, write to the noble Lord. I hope that, having said that, I have addressed all the points which the noble Lord raised. If I have failed to do so, as I say, I will write to the noble Lord.

On Question, Motion agreed to.