SUPERINTENDENT REGISTRARS AND OTHERS TO BE DEEMED EMPLOYEES AND REGIS TRAR GENERAL TO BE DEEMED EMPLOYER. (Hansard, 30 July 1975)

§ Mr. Ronald Brown
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is a peculiar situation which, again, I raise on behalf of NALGO. The problem of registrars has been an outstanding one for a long time, because they belong to an archaic institution. They are paid by the county council as if they were employees of the county council, but they are statutory office holders, and, therefore, they are not employed persons. When they wish to take any action in an industrial situation they are immediately liable to both civil and criminal sanctions for any breach of their duties. Obviously, these registrars feel that they are subjected to restrictions which prevent them from being able to resort to the normal processes of industrial action and bargaining available to other workers.
One step towards achieving equality of status with other workers would be for them to be treated as employees rather than as office holders. I have tried to draft words which would allow them to be deemed to be employees of the Registrar General who shall be deemed to be an employer". I believe that would then resolve the difficulties in which registrars, senior registrars and superintendent registrars find themselves.

§ Mr. John Page
Will the hon. Member say whether he has been able to be in touch with numbers of individual registrars and superintendent registrars, and whether there is universal acceptance of this plan?

§ Mr. Brown
I could not claim that there is universal acceptance, because I have not seen a great number of them, but the advice and help I have had leads me to believe that this is the feeling of registrars in the general sense, without saying that everybody is in favour of it.
They have argued to me that for superannuation purposes they are deemed to be employees, so there is already provision made to bring them into con- 1880 formity with their brethren who are working in other areas of society. I am not asking for something unreasonable or unusual. I cannot believe that the House will consider it reasonable to continue with this archaic process—of playing a game, pretending that they are statutory office holders being paid by local government, but at the same time being deemed to be employed persons in relation to their superannuation fund.
The wording of the clause may not be technically perfect, but I hope my hon. Friend will find himself able to accept the principle and will undertake to look at it. If he will do that and bring something forward I shall be more than happy.

§ The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth)
The first effect of the new clause is to change the Registration Service Act 1953 by altering the status of registration officers so that for the purpose of regulating their terms and conditions of employment they can be regarded as employees of the Registrar General. It would also remove from the Registration Service Act provisions which enable the Registrar General to remove registration officers from office at will. The intention of the amendment, taking these two effects together, is to give registration officers the same degree of employment protection as other workers, including the right to withdraw their labour without fear of legal proceedings or disciplinary action by the Registrar General.
The main intention of the proposed amendment is to give registration officers the right to strike. The functions normally exercised by one employer are, in the case of registration officers, divided between the local authorities, who appoint and pay the officers and provide them with offices, and the Registrar General, who controls their professional activities and who alone holds the power of dismissal. As no true employer-employee relationship exists between these officers and either the local authorities or the Registrar General, and because the Marriage and Registration Acts place certain duties directly on the officers, the officers would not be protected by the provisions of the Trade Union Acts if they took industrial action, and officers who agreed to stop work 1881 might even be held to be guilty of conspiracy.
I make no criticism of the wording of this amendment because I appreciate how difficult it is to frame law to deal with the objective which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) and I have in common. When we drafted the Bill we hinged all the rights of employees on the basis of the relationship between employees and an employer, and when one comes across a very strange category of employment like this it poses enormous difficulties. Unfortunately, the amendment is inadequate to achieve the objective.
As registration officers have duties placed on them personally by the Marriage and Registration Acts the amendment would not protect them from civil action by aggrieved members of the public, and the courts might order officers to perform their statutory duties or award damages for the consequences of any failure.
The salaries of registration officers are by the Registration Service 1953 payable by the local authorities and are determined by means of a local registration scheme made by the local authority. The amendment would appear to lead to a situation where the Registrar General would be exposed to industrial action aimed at persuading him to fix salary scales that he would be unable to enforce. Further amendment to enable him to impose salary scales on local authorities would be contrary to present policies of relaxing central control over these functions.
For all these reasons I believe that we need to have much more extensive consultation and inquiry into this problem before we can frame law which would be satisfactory to achieve the objective of my hon. Friend.
Notwithstanding the objections to this amendment which have just been outlined the Government wish to make it clear that they are well aware of the dissatisfaction among some registration officers about that aspect of their terms of employment which prevents them from withdrawing their labour and share their concern in this matter.
1882 Before any decision can be reached, however, on whether anything can or should be done to alter the status of registration officers it will be necessary for a comprehensive review of the position to be undertaken by the Secretary of State for Social Services, in consultation with other Government Ministers, the Registrar General, the associations of local authorities, the Society of Registration Officers and other interested bodies. This will be directed towards seeing whether it is possible to bring registration officers into line with other public servants, while preserving all the essential national features and requirements of the administration of the marriage laws, the registration of births, deaths and marriages and other vital events, and the compilation of national statistics.
7.0 p.m.
Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his clause, but only on the basis that we will institute a comprehensive review, to be set on foot with Department of Health and Social Security Ministers in consultation with other Government Ministers and the Registrar General, to examine the status of registrars to see whether any change is possible and desirable.
Having studied the Bill my hon. Friend will realise that we have tried to make it a very comprehensive measure. We have tried to deal with a wide range of matters involving employment protection. I am always reluctant to concede that we cannot cover anyone straight away by it, and that will be understood by those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee. However, in this case I admit that we have been defeated in our ultimate objective. I am only too glad that my colleagues at the DHSS, including the Secretary of State, are keen and willing to conduct this thorough and comprehensive survey of the problem in the hope of finding a satisfactory solution.

§ Mr. Leon Brittan (Cleveland and Whitby)
We have considerable sympathy with the reasons behind the clause. We understand that registrars feel that they are treated differently from other people in the Government service. At the same time, in considering this problem we also feel that registrars are in a special position, not only because of the complexities 1883 and the form of their employment, to which the Minister referred, but also because of the nature of their jobs and the fact that they are involved with members of the public at the most intimate and personal moments in their lives. We know that if they were accorded a status different from the one they have, they would bear that in mind in deciding whether to exercise their new-found freedom to engage in industrial action. However, we think that this special position is a factor which should be borne in mind in the consultations which are to take place.
In any event, no final decision need be reached at the moment, because the Minister has illustrated the complexity of the form of employment involved and has to our satisfaction explained why it is impossible to deal with the matter in this Bill, although we feel at the same time that it is desirable that it should be dealt with by means of the consultations which he described. For these reasons, we too hope that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) will find it possible to withdraw his clause.

§ Mr. John Page
I was interested to hear what the Minister said and I am glad that there is to be an investigation into this matter. I have been approached by a registrar who says that he prefers the present position and does not wish to take on the status of an employee. I hope that when the discussions take place the outcome will be that registrars have the right to elect to remain in their present position.
I do not see that an industrial dispute can do anything to stop a birth or a death, but it could stop a marriage. I hate to think of people queueing outside the registry office at Harrow only to be told that there is an industrial dispute and that the registrar will not be turning up. That might cause a great deal of sadness and the possible loss of a husband or wife.

§ Mr. Ronald Brown
I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the seriousness with which he has taken my proposal. I am happy to accept his assurance, and I look forward to the work of the committee to which he referred. I hope that justice will be done to registrars. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.