THE EMPLOYMENT POSITION OF REGISTRATION
SERVICE OFFICE HOLDERS
195. A central element of the proposal is that registration
officers who are currently statutory office holders under the
Registration Service Act 1953 would, on the appointed day, be
transferred into the employment of the Local Authority, as registration
authority, within the area of which his district or sub-district
is situated. In view of the fact that these officers currently
have no legal employer, they do not enjoy formal legal protection
at the time of transfer into local authority employment from redundancy
and disadvantageous changes to their terms and conditions under
the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations
1981. In order to make good what would otherwise be a serious
failure of protection for individuals involved in the establishment
of the new registration service, the proposed Order provides protections
under Article 4(4). Specifically, Article 4(4) provides that
an officer so transferred may suffer no disadvantage in terms
and conditions until such time as he may be served with notice
of his proposed new terms and conditions of employment.
196. The Committee has received representations from
both UNISON and the Society of Registration Officers arguing that
the draft RRO does not go far enough to ensure the necessary protection
of those who would be the subject of this particular provision.
These bodies suggest that certain specific steps could be taken
to ensure that the proposed Order better protected the interests
of these staff. In particular they wished:
i. That the Order be amended to make an explicit
requirement that local authorities must manage the transfer in
accordance with the cabinet Office's statement of Practice on
Staff Transfers in the Public Sector;
ii. That the Order require each registration
authority to consult with trade unions and affected staff on the
management of the transfer process and the expected effect on
the delivery of registration services; and
iii. That the Order specifically provide that
a member of staff is unfairly dismissed where the fact of that
person becoming an employee of any registration authority is given
as the reason for his dismissal.
197. We asked the GRO to consider these points.
In their response, it stated that the Cabinet Office Statement
was never intended to be prescriptive and this document in any
case specifies that local authorities must have regard to their
Best Value duties. It was Government policy that there should
be consultation with staff and their representatives in relation
to the transfer of office holders to the employment of local authorities
but that such consultations should not be statutory. The position
is summarised by the following statement from the answer given
to one of our questions about the matter: "Nonetheless, it
is intended that local authorities should follow the available
guidance and proceed as if TUPE did apply to this transfer".[81]
198. When we took oral evidence from both the Society
of Registrars and UNISON both made it clear to us that they were
in support of the wider policy objectives of the proposed Order,
which they felt would have benefits for the registration service
as well as enhance the employment position of the registration
service staff.[82] What
was of concern to them was that the proposed Order, in achieving
beneficial reforms and a long-term regularisation of the employment
position of registration service staff should also protect those
staff during the process of transition. This seemed to us an
entirely reasonable request.
199. We also took the opportunity of asking the Financial
Secretary about these requested amendments to the proposed Order
when we took oral evidence from him and his officials. He spoke
very clearly of the beneficial effects the proposed Order would
have for registration service personnel: "At the moment registration
service post-holders do not have an employer, they do not have
access to industrial tribunals because they are statutory officers,
and they do not have the benefit of protection from other elements
of employment law. So we want to make provision for registration
service statutory post-holders' employment service to be regularised
as soon as we can." He stated he would be very willing to
meet with the representatives of registration officers to discuss
their concerns, but that he did not consider there were grounds
for making the changes they were seeking.[83]
He subsequently confirmed his view to us in writing.[84]
200. We have found the response of the GRO and the
Minister on this issue disappointing. It appears to us that it
would be appropriate for a measure which is described as aiming
at the benefit of protecting the employment position of registration
service personnel to make provision to ensure that those same
staff are not prejudiced at the time of transfer. For such personnel
to have the same protections the law affords to other public sector
staff transferred in analogous circumstances would be entirely
reasonable. In our meeting with the Financial Secretary, we were
very pleased to be joined by Dr Brian Iddon MP, who is the Patron
of the Society of Registration Officers. In this discussion,
he spoke of his own concerns about the effect on the management
of the transfer process if the development of the IT system proves
to be more difficult and expensive than the GRO presently suppose.
We have spoken elsewhere of our concerns at the exposure of registration
services to the wider pressures of local authority financing which
the proposed Order would bring about. Such an eventuality might
well cause registration authorities to seek savings in ways that
might have disadvantageous consequences for officer-holders, either
individually or collectively. It would be an unfortunate irony
if this proposed Order, which is intended to lead to the normalising
of the employment rights of the staff who carry out registration
work, should itself commit the injustice of failing to give those
staff the protections enjoyed by any other employee in the process
of the transferral of his or her duties between employers.
201. We do not accept the GRO's arguments. We
consider that the Government should specifically provide for the
consultation and protection of registration service office-holders
as advocated by the Society of Registration Officers and UNISON.
CALL CENTRES FOR TELEPHONE REGISTRATION
202. As has previously been described, Article 10
and Schedule 1 of the proposed Order would permit the Registrar
General to establish a facility for the public to give registration
information by telephone to a central call centre to be established
for this purpose. In the consultation process, a significant
number of respondents argued either that such a central call centre
would be unnecessary on the basis that telephone registration
could be dealt with locally or that a central facility could be
established in conjunction with similar facilities offered by
local registration services. Large numbers of registration officers
and local authorities both considered that local telephone registration
would be beneficial for the public and would enable informants
to receive assistance from qualified and experienced local registration
staff.[85] There were
also some local authorities who felt that running a local telephone
registration facility would be an unwelcome burden.
203. The explanatory statement records that the government
intends to proceed to establish a central telephone contact centre,
which will also act as a centre for dealing with enquiries from
internet users and would be best placed to ensure consistency
of service and advice. Such a centre is also said to be a means
of offering telephone registration on the basis of a low cost
call rate. The statement also records that "it is accepted
that the creation of a central contact centre should not preclude
the development of a similar, local facility." It is said
that the central call centre will be used to assess the viability
of other facilities at regional or local level.
204. We have taken careful note of the arguments
of local authorities, the Society of Registration Officers and
others for the potential benefits of permitting experienced personnel
in local register offices to take telephone registration. We
commend the GRO for its willingness to explore this possibility
further in the light of experience of the operation of a national
registration call centre. We further consider that, as part of
its continued development of future telephone registration facilities
the GRO should study whether a telephone registration system based
on a single contact number with a facility for dispersing calls
to the appropriate local registration service could deliver the
combined benefits of an integrated system with the flexibility
and accumulated experience of existing registration service personnel.
77 Appendix J, Q109 Back
78
Explanatory statement paragraphs 20.17.9, 21.15.26, 21.16.8 and
21.17.5 Back
79
Explanatory statement, paragraph 11.12.2 Back
80
Explanatory statement, paragraph 13.7.2 Back
81
Appendix F, Q58 Back
82
Q12 and Q14 Back
83
Qq 140 to 143 Back
84
Ev 35 Back
85
Explanatory statement, paragraphs 21.1.10 to 21.112 Back
