Registration of Births and Deaths (England and Wales) (Specified Requirements) Regulations 2026

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Grand Committee

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not intend to speak for long at all. Like other Members present here today, I have registered births, deaths and just the one marriage, so far. Of course, it is a very important thing to do. I fully understand my noble friend’s argument that we must move, in the 21st century, to enable these things to be done digitally. A couple of years ago I helped to pilot on to the statute book a Private Member’s Bill to provide a digital version of the lasting power of attorney to avoid the hundreds of pages involved in producing it by a normal, old-fashioned method.

I want to raise two quick points. First, is it in fact being suggested by my noble friend that in the future these things will be done entirely online and that no person will need to go to their local authority to register a birth, marriage or death? Secondly, and he referred to the cyber security aspects of this, it is terribly important. The damage that would be caused were someone to be able to intervene and change the digital record of a birth or a death would have incalculable consequences. I hope that those are two reasonable points to mention to my noble friend.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I support the questions asked by the noble Viscount. I was not clear from the paperwork as to whether you would still need to take your baby to the town hall to register or not, or whether that would become an online process rather like applying for a TfL permit. I had a lot of difficulty with getting the documents through to TfL in a form it would accept. I am, of course, supportive of modernisation and moving to a more electronic basis for lots of very good reasons. But people need to be clear what will happen in future, what the timeframe for that is and whether we will have another discussion before we move to a completely electronic system.

I came here today because I wanted to explain a problem with the current death figures, which I do not think will be removed by the SI because that is addressing the important issue of digital administration. There is, however, a link, because the digital records will be easier to use and easier to search going forward. The fact is that death figures and birth figures are a very important tool for determining the future of public policy. They are used by doctors, by academics for longitudinal studies and, of course, for planning health and social care many years ahead.

I have a story about why they may be becoming less accurate. My husband’s aunt, for whom he had a power of attorney, had a serious health condition. Tests came back saying that her problems were not incompatible with Alzheimer’s. In the next few years, it became clear that, whatever was wrong with her, it was not Alzheimer’s. Moreover, my husband visited her regularly in her nursing home and she always remembered the previous conversations. He discussed it with a consultant psychiatrist who agreed that it was not Alzheimer’s.

When Iris died—my granddaughter is named after her—her death was certified by a locum doctor, and he put Alzheimer’s down as the cause of death. My husband objected to this. He was told he could appeal to get it changed but—and here is the rub—if he did so, it would take several months, and her body could not be buried until the matter was resolved. So, of course, rather than delay the funeral at an emotional time for us all, he dropped the matter. Her wrong record will not be unique. I am sure a change was made after the awful Shipman murders, but it is having a perverse effect. Can I ask the Minister to look at changing the rules so that, when a next of kin disputes the cause of death, burial can still go ahead while the appeal is heard? There could be a provision preventing burial if the police request it.

I have dealt with data accuracy in many roles: Clubcard at Tesco, the use of data for health management at HDR UK and data protection at DCMS. I am troubled by this example of lack of integrity. I hope the Minister will look at it and make sure that the data does indeed have integrity.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. They are not particularly controversial, so the noble Lord will be delighted to hear that it will be easier to deal with them than with other matters we have before us at times.

These regulations give effect to the provisions in Section 38B of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 as inserted by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. The policy intention is to digitise the process of registering births, stillbirths and deaths and end duplication. This, of course, is all very welcome, but I would like to press the Minister on a few points.

First, on the wider process of digitisation and technology upgrades, the General Register Office has acknowledged that the civil registration service is supported by a mixture of legacy systems, many of which are ageing and increasingly difficult to maintain. There are more than 130 million historic records stored on microfilm, which presents risks to the preservation of historic records. I understand that there is a major programme under way, the civil registration service transformation project, to digitise records and update the service. Can the Minister update us on the progress of this programme?

Secondly, Regulation 2(3)(a) states that a person can fulfil the requirements if they verify their identity by

“using a digital identity verification service”.

However, as far as I can tell, the regulations do not define what is meant by “digital identity verification service”. The Explanatory Memorandum does not provide any more detail either. In fact, digital identity is not mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum at all. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what is meant by “digital identity verification service”. What will it look like and how will people be able to access it?

Why do the Government believe this is necessary, given that an incredibly wide array of available documents is already acceptable for the purpose of proving one’s identity? There are 11 documents listed in paragraph 1 of the Schedule and 17 in paragraph 2. That means that a person could use 28 different documents to verify their identity; surely that provides a wide enough array of choice without the need for a digital identity verification service. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.