Memorandum submitted by the Society of
Registration Officers
REGULATORY REFORM
(REGISTRATION OF
BIRTHS AND
DEATHS) ORDER
I attach a submission, on behalf of the Society
of Registration Officers, for the Regulatory Reform Committee
to consider as part of its scrutiny of the proposal of the above
Order.
Our observations refer to the Regulatory Reform
Order itself (abbreviated to RRO in our response) and the content
of the Explanatory Document that accompanies it (abbreviated to
ED in our response).
I have used the Committee's Order of Reference
on which to base our response and have separated our concerns
under each particular heading.
I have attempted to keep our submission concise
but would welcome the opportunity to expand on any area by offering
oral evidence.
ORDER OF
REFERENCE
Whether the proposal for an RRO
(a) appears to make an inappropriate use of delegated
legislation
We believe that the proposal for the RRO does
make an inappropriate use of delegated legislation. The measures
proposed here affect matters fundamental to every person's status
and therefore we feel, should have been fully debated in Parliament.
The form of consultation invited has not engaged
the public and therefore public awareness of the forthcoming changes
is still very low.
The Office of the Information Commissioner has
highlighted some concerns about this legislation . . . stating
that it is important "that we don't sleepwalk into a surveillance
society where much more information is collected about people
. . . than British Society would feel comfortable with".
It is the view of the Society of Registration
Officers that many of the proposed changes are expected to be
of benefit to the public and to society as a whole but we feel
that a more public legislative route would be preferable.
(c) continues any necessary protection
Part 11 RRO 4 and ED.6:18:2
Section 6:18:2 of the Explanatory document states
that whilst TUPE cannot formally apply to a group of staff that
are not employees, the draft order will treat statutory post holders
as if TUPE did apply.
We strongly feel that the present wording of
Part 11.4 of the RRO does not do this and therefore does not offer
existing registration statutory post-holders necessary protection
on transfer to local authority employment.
The Cabinet Office Statement on Staff Transfers
to the Public Sector (January 2000) offers safeguards to staff
who are being transferred. However, its guidance is non-statutory
and we feel it imperative that in order to ensure that registration
officers terms and conditions of employment are fully protected
and that they are treated no less favourably than local authority
employees who transfer to a new employer the RRO should contain:
— the relevant wording of the Statement
of Practice on Staff transfers to the Public Sector; and
— a requirement to consult with trade
unions and staff on the "transfer" and the impact of
the "transfer" of registration services on registration
officers.
Section 11:17:1 of the ED refers to Employment
Tribunals and that the proposed conditions of transfer in the
RRO would provide similar "TUPE" like protection for
registration officers transferring to Local Authority employment.
The current wording of the RRO does not afford any employment
protection to staff from unfair dismissal where the reason for
the "dismissal" is "transferring" to become
an employee of the Local Authority. In order to ensure this protection
we would respectfully suggest that the following wording should
be included in the RRO at 4:4 "where after a relevant date,
any person to whom this section relates is dismissed, that employee
shall be treated for the purposes of Part X of the 1996 Act as
unfairly dismissed if becoming an employee of a registration authority
or a reason connected with, is the reason or principal reason
for his dismissal".
Part IV 7B (11) of RRO and in ED.6:1:11
Since 1 December 2003, instances for unmarried
couples where the baby's father's details are entered into the
birth register automatically confer joint parental responsibility
on the father. This parental responsibility can only be dissolved
by a court of law. At present there is an opportunity for the
registrar to explain the important implications of this, which
will be lost if either or both of the couple register over the
internet.
We would therefore strongly recommend that births
to unmarried couples should not be registered over the internet.
The same conditions should also apply to re-registration procedures
under Section 10A of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953.
We do not think that the suggestion in 21:1:3
of the ED of signposting appropriate websites is adequate for
such an important issue.
(d) has been the subject of, and has taken appropriate
account of adequate consultation
While there have been many opportunities to
consult, the consultation has been largely ineffective.
This is due to the fact that major decisions
had already been made about the direction of the proposed reforms
and these were non-negotiable.
Whole areas which we feel to be important, were
precluded from consultation and debate including transitional
arrangements.
We would appreciate the opportunity to expand
on this area by offering oral evidence.
(h) requires elucidation, is not written in plain
English or appears to be defectively drafted.
In 6:3:11 of ED, it is stated that provisions
will be extended to include details of a deceased husband's wife.
This provision has not been included in Schedule 3. 17:3:b of
the RRO.
In Part 11 of the RRO 4:3:b:ii, we believe that
the definition of "that authority" requires clarification.
Many Local Authorities that employed registration officers no
longer exist due to Local Government re-organisation. The wording
does not take into account registration officers who were transferred
to newly formed registration districts when many became unitary
authorities.
The present wording could be specifically interpreted
in such a way as to alter an officer's period of continuous service.
(k) satisfies the conditions of proportionality
between burdens and benefits set out in the 2001 Act
Schedule 5 of the RRO allows for access to check
an entry for a fee of £2 (article 32). This facility will
presumably be available to government agencies, UK Passport Service
etc, who will have to pay per inspection. It is inevitable that
this cost will be passed on to the subject of the search in increased
application fees.
Currently, it is possible for an applicant to
represent the same certified copy of a register entry (current
cost £7) for numerous different purposes throughout their
life.
We feel that this burden on the public is disproportionate
to the benefit to the government and other agencies.
(m) has been the subject of, and takes appropriate
account of, estimates of increase or reductions in costs or other
benefits.
The National Call Centre has been the subject
of extensive discussion. We are pleased to see that, as a result
of representations made, the original proposals have been modified
as explained in ED 21:14:19-21:14:40.
Schedule 4 of the RRO states that a registration
authority must only allocate to registration services work, staff
who are fully competent with registration regulations and statutory
requirements. It therefore follows that local registration service
providers are ideally placed to accept telephone registrations
made directly to them and would be under rigorous systems control.
This would also ensure that local knowledge
is available to facilitate the registration.
Karen Knapton
Honorary General Secretary
| 
