The Regulations made between the latter part of the 3rd, and the end of the 8th, of April mainly focus on streamlining procedures around health care (to address capacity concerns during the crisis), and post-mortem matters.
The Births and Deaths Modifications Regulations make a number of modifications to the death certificate regime. Those qualified to give information about a death under s.19 and s.20 are expanded beyond relatives and those directly involved with the body to the funeral director responsible for the deceased’s funeral (reg.6). A qualified person is normally required to give information about the death to the Registrar, and sign the Register in the presence of the Registrar, within 5 days of the death (Civil Registration Act 1984 s.19(2), 20(2)). The Regulations allow this to be done by telephone or other method as outlined by the Registrar General, in which case no signature is required (reg.7(2)-(4)). This alternative may be used when it would be unreasonable to require the normal procedure “whether because of illness, the need to care for others, the risk of infection, staff shortages at the registrar’s office or any other reason” (reg.7(4)). Similarly to the Regulations discussed below, the Regulations also relax requirements as to who may sign a death certificate, allowing any doctor to do so if it is impractical for the doctor who attended the deceased to do so (reg.8). The Registrar General may also allow any document relating to a birth or death to be delivered electronically, or by other means (reg.9)).
The Medical Evidence for Cremation Regulations modify the Cremation Regulations 2000. Regulation 7 of the 2000 Regulations prohibit a cremation taking place without a written certification of the cause of death by an attending doctor and a second doctor; or a pathologist who has carried out a post-mortem examination; or where the cause of death has been recorded by a coroner, or an inquest has been opened and a coroner has authorised a cremation as the cause of death has been determined (reg.7). The need for confirmation by a second doctor does not apply where the deceased was an in-patient in hospital and died there, or a post-mortem had been carried out and the doctor was aware of its findings (reg.7(3)). On the face of it, the new Regulation seems to add to the times when a second doctor is required – the repeated use of “and” in this section is, however, an example of the disjunctive rather than conjunctive use of “and” in legislation. There are now three situations when a second doctor is not required. The Emergency Power Regulations add a new clause here, also allowing exemption from the need for a second doctor in any case where the medical practitioner signing the death certificate “attributes the death to the primary or contributory condition of Coronavirus, and that cause is accepted by the Medical Referee” (new reg.7(3)(c)). The Medical Referee of the crematorium is a medical practitioner (reg.8) with a range of duties, including a duty not to allow a cremation unless satisfied as to the cause of death (reg.9). Putting this change before Tynwald through the Emergency Powers scheme ensures an element of democratic oversight, and is preferable to using the mechanism within the 2000 Regulations which allows modification of the Regulations by order of the Department “during an epidemic” (reg.12(2)).
The Mental Health Modifications Regulations make a number of changes to the statutory regime under the Mental Health Act 1998. This Act provides sweeping powers to take control of the affairs, and person of, a person with a mental disorder – defined in that Act as a person with a mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder, and any other disorder or disability of the mind (Mental Health Act 1998 s.1(2)). These include powers to admit and detain a person in hospital to be assessed (s.2) or treated (s.3). Normally this requires the written recommendation of two doctors – the Regulations reduce that to a single recommendation if it is considered that the normal requirement was “impractical or would involve undesirable delay” (reg.7). Other provisions of the regime involving use of medical practitioners are also relaxed (e.g. reg.11), and a number of tight timelimits are relaxed (e.g. reg.8(2)). The overall impact is to reduce the demands on the health service of this part of its work, at the expense of rules intended to impose a particular set of controls on the exercise of the very broad powers under the Mental Health Act.
On a different matter, but again reducing requirements to comply with, and administer, a developed regulatory regime, the Control of Employment Regulations modifies the work permit system in a number of ways. For holders of a work permit which was in force between the 20th of February and 16 of April, (reg..3(1)), the permit remains in force until six months after the normal end of the permit (cl.5)). An employee holding a work permit who changed employer during this period is able to rely upon their original work permit for its duration. If they were working without a work permit, because of an exemption the Control of Employment Act 2004 s.7, they can continue to work without a permit for six months after the 16th of April (reg.6(2)). For the same six month period, no person is obliged to provide the Department with details which would justify their exemption under the Act (reg.7(1), suspending Control of Regulation Employment Regulations 2017 reg.14).
Peter Edge's Law Blog. 