My understanding of the situation was that this amendment was added to the Bill following the situation being raised in the House of Lords by Baroness Scott, therefore while the full piece of legislation may have been a Government Bill, it was obviously not part of the governments original purpose for the legislation. This is in spite of the campaigns over the years to try and get such a scheme created and the previous government's desire for budget cuts and efficiencies. If I'm wrong about this, I'm happy to stand corrected.
With the recent reports that the new government is looking at cost savings in the Civil Service, lets hope pressure is put on the GRO to implement the Act's amendment sooner rather than later. However, its not likely to happen overnight because of the need for such a scheme to go out to tender for 3rd party involvement and then the tender winner needing to scan in the marriage registers and index all of the scans assuming that a "scotland's people" type scheme is on the cards. I wasn't saying it was a matter of if the Act was implemented but when. Hence my comment that a scan on demand system would probably have been quicker to implement, particularly with Births and Deaths already digitised. It would still bring about some form of cost savings. However, whatever is implemented is going to be an improvement on the current situation, its just a matter of when it happens.
It depends what you mean by "it was obviously not part of the governments original purpose for the legislation".
The purpose of the Government's Deregulation Bill was exactly that in the words of the summary it was-
"A bill to make provision for the reduction of burdens resulting from legislation for businesses or other organisations or for individuals; make provision for the repeal of legislation which no longer has practical use; make provision about the exercise of regulatory functions; and for connected purposes."
The bill covered a wide range from Health and Safety, apprenticeships, taxis, rights of way, right to buy etc. etc.
Both amendments 33A and 33B fit the above description not only to the letter but also to the intent.
It is now virtually impossible for progress not to be made as the burdens have already been examined and shown to be reduced at a cost saving, thereby exemplifying two of the Government's raison d'être (efficiency and savings) in one action.
Yes the civil service will fight the change tooth and nail as they have done for the last 100 years, but because the legislation has been amended to remove doubts to the legality of supplying non certified copies of entries they have now lost their only excuse not to comply with the intent of the originating legislation.
However as I have stated elsewhere, there is no reason to assume that non certified copies of births, marriages, deaths and civil partnerships will be available all at the same time.
In fact the Deregulation Act 2015 (section 99, 2 and 3) specifically alters section 36 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and section 9 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 to require uncertified copies to be immediately available.
This adds further pressure on the civil service to rapidly push the change to allow the rapid provision of uncertified copies of BMDs.
It is even possible that the Births & Deaths could be licenced to any provider in the same way as the census (prior to the 1911 census) were licenced therby bringing in the element of competition.
Then at a later date a contract to digitise and provide uncertified copies of marriages could be put out to tender.
The whole situation is very fluid at the moment but changes are in the air.
Cheers
Guy
