Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
MS SANDRA
HOWELL AND
MS JULIE
HOLE
26 OCTOBER 2004
Chairman: Good morning, can I welcome
you to the Committee and can I also welcome Dr Brian Iddon, who
is a Member of the House, who has just joined us. It is a right
of Members to do this and I can tell you he is the first Member
to actually exercise that right in the history of the Committee.
You are very welcome this morning.
Dr Iddon (attending the Committee pursuant
to Standing Order 141(13)): Thank you, Chairman.
Q1 Chairman: For the benefit of the witnesses,
you understand the nature of the job this Committee has to do,
we have to see whether we consider the proposals as being appropriate
and we have a number of criteria we have to judge it by in the
legislation. Will you introduce yourselves for the sake of the
record? You have made a written submission but if you want to
make any very brief opening comments, do so, and then we will
go into questions because we are a little bit tight on time, as
you will understand.
Ms Howell: My name is Sandra Howell,
I am a National Officer for UNISON, and UNISON represents staff
working in the civil registration services in England and Wales,
including registrars and superintendent registrars. We support
the Government's measures contained in the Regulatory Reform Order
to modernise civil registration in England and Wales. We believe
the draft Order has not taken appropriate account of adequate
consultation on employment rights for registrars regarding their
transfer to local government employment. We outline this point
in our response to the Registration Review and this is not reflected
in the draft Order. UNISON and the Society of Registration Officers
have campaigned for many years for employee status for registrars,
which could have been implemented by an Order under s23 of the
Employment Relations Act 1999, so we welcome the draft Order which
would give registrars full employee rights and status by transferring
them to local government employment. However, we believe that
the draft Order does not continue the necessary protection of
employment rights under TUPE, that is the Transfer of Undertakings
and Protection of Employment Regulations. This is because the
Order does not give registrars the same employment rights and
protection during transfer that all local authority employees
enjoy under TUPE. With the minor amendments set out in our submission
to this Committee, registrars would have the same TUPE employment
protection which all local authority employees have when being
transferred to a new employer. This includes continuity of employment
protection, enabling registrars who have worked in different jobs
in other local authorities before becoming registration officers
to have continuous employment protection for those years of service.
I refer you to amendment 2 of our submission. Also protection
from dismissal by reason of the transfer which could be held automatically
unfair, as it is under TUPE legislation, and I refer you to amendment
4 of our submission.
Q2 Chairman: I think some of these will
come out in the questioning. Shall we move on to the questions?
Ms Howell: Could I just finish
with a few other points. We do not want any delay in providing
registrars with full employee status. We believe that if this
Committee recommends these minor amendments to the draft Order
to Government, registrars would have the same employment rights
during transfer as exist for all local government employees being
transferred to a new employer under TUPE. Thank you.
Q3 Chairman: You are from UNISON and
Julie is from SORO?
Ms Hole: That is right, yes.
Q4 Chairman: If we could first concentrate
on the employment issues and then move on to the other aspects
and spend a few minutes on those. Obviously we understand the
concern from the union on the issues you have raised. You are
saying you believe there should be a consultation requirement
in the proposal because of the points you are making, but what
type of consultation process have you actually got in mind? Who
would carry it out, and how would it differ from the consultation
which has already taken place during the preparation of the proposals
we are now considering?
Ms Howell: In terms of the Order
itself, I was referring to the same consultation rights as exist
in TUPE—
Q5 Chairman: Sorry, I did not let Julie
say a few opening words. Answer the question and if Julie wants
to say anything in opening, she can. I apologise for that.
Ms Howell: I was referring to
the same consultation rights which exist in TUPE legislation,
which is Regulation 10. This basically would require the registration
authority to consult the registrars and their employee representatives
on the impact of the transfer and any action envisaged.
Q6 Chairman: Julie, I am sorry I did
not let you make any opening comments. Is there anything you wish
to say at this stage?
Ms Hole: I will be very brief.
I am Julie Hole, I am the National Public Relations Officer
for the Society of Registration Officers, the practitioners' consultative
and representative body. The Society fully endorses the views
expressed by UNISON and are supportive of the reforms as a whole,
but there are areas which cause us particular concerns. We feel
the proposed changes which will affect every level of society
are so wide-ranging and immense that a more transparent legislative
route would have been preferable. It has been very difficult for
both practitioners and members of the public to understand and
absorb the mass of information required to make a meaningful response
to the consultation. Whole areas were precluded from the consultation,
including the transitional arrangements which will last about
ten years. The IT procurement exercise, one of the largest undertaken
by Her Majesty's Government, has already begun, before the legislation
has been passed, and we were informed the framework for changes,
including a national call centre, would not be the subject for
debate. We know the system needs to reform but the measures proposed
should have been fully debated in Parliament to raise the public's
awareness.
Q7 Chairman: I am going to ask some questions
and if either of you wish to come in, by all means do so. On the
consequences, and I am sure you will not be concerned about the
beneficial consequences, if there are detrimental consequences,
and you have covered some of this in your opening comments, what
do you see in the longer-term for the current employees within
the registration service who are now going to be transferred into
local government? What detrimental things do you see there?
Ms Howell: The detrimental issue
for them is, if the Order is passed as it is, there may be the
possibility that registration officers are not fully consulted
with them on any changes which will occur as a result of the transfer,
including any changes to terms and conditions of employment. There
may also be a lack of consultation on any changes to their working
practices and jobs as a result of modernisation, and it would
be very useful for employees to be involved in any consultation
on changes to their working practices.
Q8 Chairman: So you do not think the
necessary protection for the workers will actually be there if
it is not written into the proposal?
Ms Howell: Unfortunately not.
TUPE legislation exists to protect staff who have been transferred
over to new employees. I know registration officers are statutory
officers, which is why this transfer is being written into the
Order, and that is why we want TUPE-like protection for registration
officers which at the moment does not exist.
Q9 Chairman: How do you consider the
fact that local authorities are going to have closer managerial
control over local registration services? Do you think that will
in the long-term have positive consequences for the local delivery
of service rather than conditions of employment?
Ms Howell: I think it will. That
is a proposal that we absolutely support, particularly as most
of our local authority representatives and members have direct
management control by local authorities, and it is very useful
to ensure they have that control and they have that input and
relationship with the employees.
Q10 Dr Naysmith: Good morning. At the
moment registrars have a kind of unusual position in which they
are legally separate, and they do not have managerial accountability
to anyone apart from right at the top. Do you not think that gives
a certain measure of protection for you in the transfer, that
you are protected already by the fact you are legally independent?
This is probably for Julie.
Ms Hole: As you quite rightly
say, we only answer to the top, the Registrar General, however
should we be dismissed for any reason—usually a technical
issue—only the Registrar General can dismiss us and the
only right of appeal we have is to the Registrar General, which
does not afford us the same protection as other employees have.
Q11 Dr Naysmith: What effect do you think
that has on the registration process itself, the fact you are
independent and not run by local authorities? Do you think you
might lose something valuable by this change?
Ms Hole: There is a fear within
Registration, amongst the practitioners, that we might lose some
of the accuracy and the integrity of the service if it is governed
by 172 local authorities. Even though there will be national standards,
there will be diversity.
Q12 Dr Naysmith: You are not 100% sure
that this is the right thing to do?
Ms Hole: Yes. We are fully aware
that reforms need to be made to the service.
Q13 Dr Naysmith: But you still think
that there is a little bit of doubt about the service.
Ms Hole: Yes. Not all local authorities
will run the service with integrity.
Q14 Chairman: Sandra, would you like
to comment on that?
Ms Howell: We are fully supportive
of the transfer and the modernisation process. As Julie has already
referred to, registrars do not have any employment rights, at
the moment, because they are not employees, they are statutory
officers. For example, they cannot take any cases to the employment
tribunals, so we are fully supportive of this transfer.
Q15 Dr Naysmith: That is fairly similar
to general practitioners in the National Health Service. They
have not done too badly, have they?
Ms Hole: We do not get paid as
much as they do!
Q16 Dr Naysmith: That is another matter.
If this change takes place, and you say something is going to
happen, what do you think the affect on the quality of advice
that registrars currently offer to people who come along and want
to register various things will be?
Ms Hole: Registrars are the frontline
service, especially when someone has lost a relative. Very often,
they act as a bereavement counsellor, unofficially giving advice
and support to those who are bereaved. In the case of birth registrations,
when parents are unmarried we are able to give advice to a father
who chooses to register the birth with the mother on his rights
and responsibilities as a parent. We feel that should this be
taken away from the face-to-face registration to on-line or remote
registration in anyway whatsoever, we will not be able to give
advice and support to those who attend our office.
Q17 Mr Lazarowicz: On that point, do
you see any role for centrally run registration services for the
future of the service, or do you think, inevitably, there is going
to be an affect on the quality of the service offered to informants?
Ms Hole: We think there is bound
to be an affect on the quality of service.
Q18 Mr Lazarowicz: A detrimental affect?
Ms Hole: Yes. There is bound to
be. We are the experts in our field and we feel that while we
agree with through-life records and there being a national database,
what we do not agree with is a national call centre. Registrations
could be perfectly well effected in local registration districts,
where informants can be given local advice and information by
trained registration staff.
Chairman: Doug, would you like to ask
another question?
Q19 Dr Naysmith: It has partly been answered.
At the moment, we have got face-to-face registration services,
do you see any adverse effects—it has been answered in terms
of advice—or any other benefits of the availability of face-to-face
registration being lost under the proposed national internet,
for example, or telephone registration services? Do you think
that will make a difference to these kinds of services other than
what we talked about?
Ms Hole: No. I think it gives
the public a choice in how they can effect a registration and
choice is important. At the moment, the public can be disadvantaged
by having to go to a local office. I think the public do need
choice, and in the future the choice will be taken up far more
by our children and our children's children.
| 
