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

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Grand Committee

[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.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. I give what I hope is an assurance to my noble friend Lord Stansgate. Provision for online services will be available next year, but we are taking a staged approach: we are undertaking deaths online first, and births and stillbirths will come later. We are also introducing the provision to register deaths by telephone from November this year. However, there will still be an option to attend in person and, as the new system is being developed, that option will always remain. I hope that reassures my noble friend.

I would also reassure my noble friend on cyber security, which we take very seriously. These are important matters that are extremely important for individuals to have confidence. In my introductory remarks, I indicated that cyber security is up to the standards of all our developments in government. There are always challenges and people trying to get information, and there will always be potential attacks, but we are confident that the provisions in place are up to the standard that the Government expect for cyber security, for the reasons I outlined in my opening remarks.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about whether a burial can still go ahead while an appeal on the cause of death is being heard, which is an important question. Obviously, it is a very difficult time for anybody when a death occurs, and that is an added complication, so I understand why she has raised this. If a medical examiner discusses the case with the certifying doctor, the cause of death can be amended if evidence is available to support this. Alternatively, the case could be referred to the coroner; once the coroner has released the body, this does not necessarily require the cause of death to be established.

Again, looking at the advice—I was aware that the noble Baroness would raise this—my understanding is that, under the recently introduced medical examiner scheme, a disposal document can be issued only upon receipt of a completed medical certificate of cause of death. The medical examiner has a duty to discuss the cause of death with the next of kin. The medical examiner issued a report yesterday confirming that medical examiner officers in both England and Wales report that an interaction with the next of kin took place in 97% of cases. Feedback received from the medical examiner confirms that the overwhelming number of cases were positive and that, if there are particular difficulties, the medical examiner and others will look at those. If the noble Baroness wants to write privately with the specific details of the case, outside the Committee, I will certainly look into it, because potentially some of the issues she raised may well have been due to misinformation rather than any malpractice. If she writes, I will look at the case as a whole.

With regard to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, I think he is referring to the use of One Login, the Government’s approved digital verification service, which will be used for those using an online system. People will be required as of now to use the Government-approved digital verification when registering online. That will be similar to other forms of Government Gateway that are used.

The noble Lord also mentioned cyber security. As I said to my noble friend Lord Stansgate, as a Government we take that issue very seriously. We believe that this meets the standards. As I said to my noble friend, there will be opportunities to use the telephone and do it in person, as well as to do it online. However, the whole purpose of the regulations is to allow that online push for greater efficiency to continue. I hope the noble Lord is content with those comments. If there are further issues, I will look at what he has said and drop him a helpful letter, unless he wishes to raise any further issues now.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I have no further issues to raise, but I will make a comment. I have used the government verification system recently, and it is an absolute nightmare. If nothing else, I wish they could make it a lot easier, because you almost have to have a degree in mathematics to use it.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I confess that the education I had in maths did not even really reach O-level standard, but I managed to use it. I can never remember the verification numbers or reference numbers that I have, and that is always difficult, but that is a common problem in every aspect of modern digital life. I cannot remember passwords and other things, so I tend to write them down, which then makes them vulnerable to misuse. It is very difficult—I accept that—but, fortunately, nobody knows where I have written down my verification for the government log in except me, so I think I am safe.

The Government’s intention is to make this type of activity as simple as possible for people. When we had Covid, I used the telephone service when a close relative of mine died and I had to report the death. I found the telephone service 100% efficient and useful. In fact, it saved me a journey from where my mum died into the centre of Liverpool to register the death at a time of great distress. It was much easier to do that on the phone, in the comfort of my own home, rather than having to go along to a city-centre office to do it. As my noble friend Lord Stansgate said, it is still possible to do that, but I think the movement to online, digital and telephone will help the consumer, which is what we should be about, and improve efficiency. I commend the regulations to the Committee.