Contact: Karen Murray/Ros Anderson, ext 7876/7589

1. Summary

2. The Service Under Review

2.1 Background to the Service

2.2 Organisation and Management

2.3 Aims of the Service and Statutory Basis

2.4 Links to the Corporate Aims

2.5 Scope of the Service

3. The Review Process

3.1 The Review Team

3.2 Review Methodology

3.3 Review Costs

4. Review Findings

4.1 Compare

4.2 Consultation

4.3 Challenge

4.4 Competition

4.5 Sustainability

4.6 Crime and Disorder

4.7 Equalities

4.8 E-Government

5. Member Input

6. Lessons Learnt

7. Conclusions

8. Summary and Recommendations

Appendices

1. Best Value Improvement Plan

2. Options Appraisal Report

3. Report on Review of Register Offices

4. Best Value Review Project Plan

5. Summary of Benchmarking Information

6. Customer survey - Summary of Suggested Improvements

7. Approved Premises telephone survey - summary of findings

8. Extract from HM Inspector's Report - conclusions and recommendations.

9. Summary of EFQM Assessment.

10. Notes from Challenge Event held on 8 November 2001

11. Equalities Assessment Summary.

1. Summary

1.1 This report contains the outcome of the Best Value Review of the Registration Service. Appendix 1 of the report is an Improvement Plan which identifies areas for improvement, timescales, responsibilities and progress to date.

1.2 The review has concluded that the residents of Hampshire are best served by a Registration Service that is based on a single registration district. This provides more flexibility for the public to attend at any Register office convenient to them instead of the former requirement to use a specific office within one of ten separate registration districts. The options appraisal report is given at Appendix 2.

1.3 A rationalisation of offices has also been proposed based on a range of criteria including office usage and accessibility. A report of this review is given at Appendix 3.

1.4 To support the new structure, a number of incremental improvements have been built into the Improvement Plan arising from the work carried out to address the 4 C's of Best Value.

1.5 Depending upon the outcome of the Government's review of the Registration Service nationally, changes in legislation to enable longer term improvements in the service are to be sought.

1.6 Members are asked to consider this report and to approve the recommendations at paragraph 8.

2. The Service under Review

2.1 Background to the Service

2.1.1 The Registration Service was first established nationally in 1837 with the purpose of proving people's identity, particularly in regard to inheritance laws, preventing clandestine marriages and ensuring the integrity of records. It remains a very traditional service and legislation has not substantially changed over the years. This has restricted the scope and opportunities for innovation and development of the service.

2.1.2 The Hampshire Registration Service forms part of Regulatory Services within the Property, Business and Regulatory Services Department.

2.1.3 The Service provides the County Council with an important direct link with the public. The public are legally obliged to use the service for the registration of births, stillbirths and deaths, and marriage preliminaries. The service's aim has been to improve accessibility and make the service as pleasant as possible to use. An appointments system is operated to ensure the public are not kept waiting. In addition there is a peripatetic service enabling visits to the homes of people who are unable to attend at a Register office or outstation (see 2.2.5 for definition of outstation) due to disability or other extenuating circumstance. Registration staff are on permanent call outside normal hours to respond to the needs of certain religious groups in providing certificates for burial or cremation at short notice where funerals must take place within 24 hours of the death.

2.1.4 The service promotes Hampshire as a place for marriages through an increasing number of approved premises. Following the 1994 Marriage Act, it became possible to licence premises other than Register Offices at which civil marriage ceremonies could be carried out. There are currently 88 approved premises within Hampshire ranging from community halls to prestigious hotels. These together with the marriage rooms within Register Offices offer the public a wide range of choice depending upon their needs and economic means.

2.2 Organisation and Management of the Service

2.2.1 Registration staff are statutory officers appointed at the pleasure of the Registrar General and are therefore not employees of Hampshire County Council. There is a total of 42 (28.96 FTE) registration staff. In addition there are 22 pool deputies who are employed on a casual basis to cover the absence of statutory officers and be available to meet the demands at peak times.

2.2.2 Responsibility for the monitoring of the professional and technical competence of Registration staff rests with HM Inspector of Registration. The County Council's responsibilities include: the provision and location of offices; opening hours; interviewing new staff and recommending their appointment to the Registrar General; administration; and health and safety. The Registration Service is therefore unusual being subject to these dual management roles.

2.2.3 The service is currently divided into 10 separate Registration Districts. Offices (with opening hours per week shown in brackets) are located at:

Main District offices: Alton (18), Andover (23.5), Aldershot (27.5), Basingstoke (35), Winchester (27.5), Romsey (17.5), Ringwood (33), Fareham (27.5), Bishops Waltham (13), and Petersfield (23.5).

Sub-District offices: Eastleigh (25.5), Gosport (19) and Havant (23).

Permanently manned outstation: Totton (10).

2.2.4 Of these, only 2 offices (at Basingstoke and Ringwood) are open through the lunch period. Only 4 offices have the benefit of Reception staff.

2.2.5 There are also another 15 outstations. Outstations are additional rooms which have been rented or leased to provide further access points for the public. Apart from Totton, these outstations are not permanently manned and are only used at the request of the public on an appointment basis. Only 4 outstations are used regularly. The other outstations have not been required by the public and have remained unused for periods ranging from the last 1 to 5 years. The findings of this review suggest the need to rationalise offices - see section 4.3.17 and Appendix 3.

2.3 Aims of the Service and Statutory Basis

2.3.1 The Registration Service aims to provide an efficient and effective service responsive to the needs of the local community. Its statutory function is to:

· Register births, stillbirths, deaths and marriages.

· Ensure civil preliminaries to marriage are legally complied with.

· Perform civil marriage ceremonies.

2.3.2 This also includes the need to:

· Keep and maintain the locally deposited registers of the National Archive.

· Issue certified copies of entries from current and historic records.

· Make statistical returns to the Office for National Statistics.

2.3.3 In addition to these statutory duties, the service also advises, supports and licences approved premises for marriages.

2.3.4 The key objectives of the service, which are set out in an annual service plan, are to:

· Expand the choice of approved premises.

· Explore the delivery of other functions and ceremonies.

· Fully utilise the opportunities provided by modern technology and e-Government.

· Improve access to Register Offices.

· Improve communications within the service and to the public.

2.4 Links to the Corporate Aims

The provision of the Registration Service links to the County Council's Corporate Aims as follows:

Corporate Aim

Corporate Aim Outcome

Registration Service Link

Aim 1 - Developing the Quality of Life in Hampshire

Improving the health of the People in Hampshire

The Registration Service collates data for the Office of National Statistics which is used for the planning of health and education needs at both local and national levels.

Aim 3 - Achieving Economic Prosperity

Promoting growth within key sectors and investment in Hampshire

Licensing and supporting approved premises and maintaining high quality Register office marriage rooms encourages business into the area.

Aim 4 - Partnerships for Strong Communities in Hampshire

Raising the profile of the County Council with local people

The Registration Service contributes to the County Council's website. It has also published leaflets concerning how to register births and deaths, and an attractive marriage brochure promoting marriage in Hampshire.

Corporate Aim

Corporate Aim Outcome

Registration Service Link

Aim 5 - Provide High Quality Accessible Services	Demonstrate economy, efficiency and effectiveness.	In meeting the demands of the public, income from marriages at approved premises contributes towards the cost of running the service.
	Implementation of the Personnel and Training strategies.	The Registration Service, as part of Property, Business and Regulatory Services, has achieved the award of Investors in People. An in-service training team maintains up-to-date technical skills.
	Achieve higher standards in access and inclusion for all County Council services	The Service has improved the accessibility of some register offices and is developing plans for total physical access with colleagues in Property Services. There is a peripatetic service for those unable to attend offices for registrations. There is an objective for exploring all means of communicating with the public (e.g. through improved use of technology).

2.5 Scope of the Service

2.5.1 The following table shows the gross costs, income and net costs of the service over the last three years.

		Gross costs £000	Income £000	Net costs £000
1998/1999	Budget	1,032	569	463
	Actual	1,120	668	452
1999/2000	Budget	1,242	712	530
	Actual	1,271	715	556
2000/2001	Budget	1,257	697	560
	Actual	1,326	778	548
2001/2002	Budget	1,337	741	596
	Projection	1,448	852	596

2.5.2 The above figures include costs such as premises, capital financing charges and central support charges as this gives a much closer approximation to Total Cost under the Best Value Accounting Code of Practice. Increased costs in 1999/2000 reflect planned investment in new technology to meet the changing service requirements following introduction of the Asylum and Immigration Act. This was funded from money carried forward from the previous year following tight control to achieve this.

2.5.3 The following table provides a breakdown of costs and income for 2001/2002.

Description	Budget for 2001/2002 £000
Staffing	841
Premises	15
Travelling and allowances	33
Supplies and services	106
Central departmental and support services	47
Customer and client receipts	741
Sub-Total	301
Apportionment of building costs	290
Central departmental support	5
TOTAL	596

2.5.4 The following table shows the annual figures for birth, marriages and death registration service provision for the last 3 years and an estimate for the current year.

* The increase in marriage notices reflects the introduction of the Asylum and Immigration Act which now requires a notice to be taken from each person wishing to be married.

3. The Review Process

3.1 The Review Team

The review team was led by John Fulstow, Head of Regulatory Services and Proper Officer for the Registration Service, from January to October 2001 when he retired from the County Council. Karen Murray, Head of Resources of the Property, Business and Regulatory Services Department, took up the role of Team Leader for the remainder of the review.

The other core members of the review team were:

Barbara Botley Head of Registration Service

Val Proctor Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages

/Deputy Superintendent Registrar/Training Officer

Sharon Ricketts Staff Representative/Registrar of Births,

Deaths and Marriages/Deputy Superintendent

Registrar/Training Officer

Ros Anderson Quality Manager, Regulatory Services (Project Manager)

Martha Fowler-Dixon Representative from the Corporate Best Value Team

Ron Meekings Head of Finance, PB&R

Howard Short Property Services Manager

3.2 Review Methodology

The review team met on a monthly basis from January to December 2001. The project plan (given at Appendix 4) was largely adhered to and set out the key milestones, responsibilities and timescales.

The review comprised the following evaluations:

· EFQM challenge carried out by the review team.

· Customer and stakeholder focus group consultation carried out by Lynne Miller Associates with three groups relating to birth registrations, death registrations and marriages.

· A follow-up customer survey by questionnaire.

· A telephone survey of approved premises.

· Staff consultation.

· Mapping against the Local Government Association Good Practice Guide

· A County-wide review by the H M Inspector of Registration

· Benchmarking against other authorities.

· A challenge event involving members and stakeholders.

· An Equalities Assessment carried out by staff from the Personnel and Training Department as part of a pilot study.

· Assessments in regard to the County Council's policies for sustainability, crime and disorder, and e-Government.

· Review and assessment of the use and viability of all Register Offices and out stations.

The findings from these evaluations are reported under 4 below.

3.3 Review Costs

The review was carried out as a priority task within officers' normal work schedules. The cost of engaging Lynne Miller Associates to carry out and report on the three focus groups was considered to be good value at a total cost of £4,500.

4 Review Findings

4.1 Compare

4.1.1 At the time of this review, national performance indicators based on the Local Government Association's Best Practice Guidelines are being developed but there is little comparative information yet available. Benchmarking has therefore been focused on financial and service provision comparisons.

4.1.2 Benchmarking information based on the South East Proper Officers Group of authorities for the year 2000/2001 has been obtained and is shown at Appendix 5.

4.1.3 Of this group of six authorities, Kent has the largest population followed by Hampshire, Surrey, West Sussex, Brighton & Hove, and Portsmouth. Hampshire has the most registration districts at 10 and has more service access points for the public, with a total of 30, compared with the other authorities. In comparing service levels, both Kent and Surrey carry out a higher number of registration events (e.g. registration of births, deaths and marriages and performing marriage ceremonies) than Hampshire reflecting the impact of Local Government Re-organisation when Portsmouth and Southampton became Unitary Authorities.

4.1.4 Direct comparisons can be made between all of the authorities by evaluating financial performance and this is illustrated in the following table.

4.1.5 This analysis shows that Hampshire has the:

· lowest net cost per head of population at 44p,

· third lowest net cost per registration event at £22.73, and

· second highest percentage of expenditure funded by income at 56%.

4.1.6 Hampshire makes the highest charge for an approved premise licence and renewal at £1,030 (2000/01 level). But, unlike each of the other authorities, Hampshire does not charge for any additional rooms for marriages at approved premises.

4.1.7 A separate telephone survey investigated the charges for attendance of Registration staff at marriages. These are shown in the following table.

4.1.8 This information suggests that Hampshire has an average charging policy in comparison with other authorities.

4.1.9 All of the authorities within the South East Proper Officers Group operate an appointments system. The average appointment time for most authorities is 30 minutes. While Hampshire is currently carrying out a county-wide monitoring exercise to confirm average appointment and waiting times, Registration staff estimates suggest that Hampshire compares well with the other authorities within the comparison group.

4.1.10 The results of the benchmarking study suggest that Hampshire has a good financial record compared with the other authorities in this group.

4.2 Consultation

Focus Groups

4.2.1 Miller Associates, an external market research company, were commissioned to undertake three focus groups relating to births, marriages and deaths. In the case of the former two, people who had used the service in the three months prior to the exercise being conducted were asked whether they would be prepared to take part in the research. The focus group for birth registrations was drawn from people using the offices at Winchester and Eastleigh. For marriages, those using the services of the Registrars based in Ringwood or Romsey were asked to participate. Volunteers were subsequently contacted by Miller Associates and invited to attend a discussion group.

4.2.2 In regard to the registration of deaths, it was thought more appropriate if stakeholders in this process were contacted, rather than people who had recently registered the death of a relative. For this particular group, stakeholders in the Petersfield and Alton areas were contacted. These stakeholders included funeral directors, solicitors, GP surgeries, the coroner's office, and heads of nursing homes.

4.2.3 In all, 20 people were involved in the focus groups. The broad objectives of the groups were to measure the significance of the registration service and people's expectations of it under different types of circumstances (i.e. a marriage, a birth, or a death); assess how accessible people find the service; determine whether the service matched expectations; and invite ideas for improvements that can be made.

4.2.4 It was apparent from the focus groups that all those who had used the service, or who had had contact with it, were very satisfied with the service they had received. All of the users/stakeholders involved had very high praise for the individual Registrars they had come into contact with. Of particular note was the ability of Registrars to deal with sensitive issues compassionately and to behave in a manner that was appropriate to the situation.

4.2.5 A summary of the key findings from each group follows:

Births:

· Birth registrations are relatively straightforward with clear information available at hospitals (but details of cost of certificates was out of date)

· All of the parents had been able to get through to the Registrar on their first attempt and make an appointment at their own convenience

· The registration process was found to be simple.

· All of the parents said they would have welcomed a hand written birth certificate if this option had been available to them.

· Some parents were interested in a naming ceremony.

· Nappy changing facilities were suggested as an improvement.

Deaths:

· The registration of a death is a more complicated process and people require more information in advance.

· Some problems have been experienced in trying to make immediate appointments through the use of answerphones at some register offices. Same day appointments are not always possible for this reason and the need to return calls.

· If the Registrar answers the telephone during an appointment informants feel this encroaches on their appointment time.

· Increased opening hours would be helpful

· Separate waiting areas for birth and death registrations. Make waiting areas more welcoming, e.g. drinks machine (water), box of tissues, etc.

· Where there are no reception staff, an explanatory notice would be helpful stating `Please take a seat and the Registrar will be with you as soon as possible'.

· A map would be useful.

· Payment by credit card would be useful.

Marriages:

· Not all participates had realised there was an appointments system to see a Registrar.

· All had been able to speak to the Registrar by telephone at first attempt.

· Each couple had been able to have the wedding at the time and date they preferred.

· Each couple were happy with the options given for their wedding ceremony. One person said "We were given enough choice. You could do exactly what you wanted, really tailor it to how you wanted, if you wanted it to be traditional".

· Couples were very complimentary about the way Registrars conducted themselves at the wedding ceremonies.

· Couples were very much against commercialising the service in any way and did not see the point of selling ancillaries such as film or confetti, and were against the idea of placing advertisements in the approved premises brochure.

· Suggested improvements included:

· a map for wedding guests;

· longer time between marriage ceremonies;

· information about the best places for taking photographs;

· more information about other venues.

Customer Survey

4.2.6 A follow-up survey of customers using the service during September 2001 was carried out at all Register offices. More than 830 questionnaires were completed representing approximately 35% of customers using the service during September. This survey was particularly useful because it included people registering a death, and enabled comparisons to be made between offices.

4.2.7 While the questionnaires did not specifically invite praise, many of the comments made by customers were positive:

Death informant: "As strangers to Basingstoke we found your service extremely helpful, sympathetic and understanding".

Death informant: "Did not make an appointment but seen straight away".

Marriage: "Thanks, you were great".

Certificate request: "I only required a copy Birth Certificate from your service, but was impressed with both politeness and speed".

Birth informant: "Good quality, friendly service".

4.2.8 There were two questionnaires: one for birth and death registrations and one for marriages. The average scores (1 being poor and 5 being excellent) for the questions in the survey were as follows:

Birth and Death Registrations:

Marriages:

4.2.9 The survey scores and the positive comments outlined above, like the findings of the focus groups, showed the high regard that customers have for the service.

4.2.10 The survey was particularly helpful in highlighting issues at specific offices. A summary of the suggested improvements from the survey is given at Appendix 6.

Approved premises

4.2.11 A telephone survey of the 88 premises who are approved for marriages was carried out during November 2001. 50% of the venues agreed to take part in the survey. 5 questions were asked and additional comments sought. The findings identified a high level of satisfaction with the support provided by registration staff before and on the day of a marriage. The majority of approved premises, however, would like to receive more information from the Registration Service to give to couples who enquire about a wedding at the venue. A summary of the survey findings is given at Appendix 7.

Staff Consultation

4.2.12 Staff have been kept involved with the progress of the Best Value review through regular staff briefings and visits to offices by the Head of Registration.

4.2.13 All staff were invited to attend an evening meeting in Winchester on 26 June 2001 to receive reports and discuss:

· The findings from the Review Team's EFQM assessment of the service's strengths and areas for improvement;

· Feedback from the focus groups facilitated by Miller Associates; and

· The draft service development plan.

4.2.14 In addition to discussion at this event, staff were invited to return comments to the Review Team Leader within the following two weeks. Only a few staff did this and most staff were very supportive of what they had heard.

4.2.15 A staff perceptions survey was carried out by HM Inspector of Registration between May and June 2001. An extract of the conclusions and recommendations from the Inspector's report is given at Appendix 8. The issues arising from the survey are addressed in the Best Value Improvement Plan.

4.2.16 Discussion was held at a meeting of the Superintendent Registrars on 21 November 2001 about the proposals for a single registration district. It was noted here that staff have accepted the need for change.

Consultation Outcomes

4.2.17 The outcomes from the consultation exercises have contributed towards challenging the service and have helped to inform the review of register offices. Actions to address specific issues raised have been incorporated within the Best Value Improvement Plan as appropriate

4.3 Challenge

4.3.1 There were five separate exercises that focused on challenging the Registration Service:

· Assessment of the service using the EFQM Excellence Model;

· Comparing the service against the new Good Practice Guide for the Registration Service published by the Local Government Association (LGA);

· A county-wide review carried out by HM Inspector of Registration;

· A challenge event involving both members and stakeholders; and

· The review and assessment of Register Offices and out stations.

EFQM Assessment

4.3.2 The Review Team carried out an assessment of the service using the EFQM model in May 2001. The findings demonstrated that the service has many strengths with particular improvements made to the integration, co-ordination and management arrangements of the service over the last few years. Key areas for improvement included the need for consultation with customers and stakeholders (which has been undertaken as part of this review); improvements to service planning and management of processes; clarification of service standards and performance measures; and improvements to internal communications.

4.3.3 Actions to address the issues raised, where not already taken, are included in the Improvement Plan. A summary report of the EFQM assessment is given at Appendix 9.

LGA Best Practice Guidelines

4.3.4 The LGA's Good Practice Guide was published in January 2001. A questionnaire based on the guide was sent to each of the main Register Offices and sub-district offices for completion by Superintendent Registrars or other staff as appropriate. This helped to further involve staff in the review and also ensure a more accurate assessment of local conditions was made. Questionnaires were completed for 13 offices. These were then summarised to assess the overall position of the service compared with the guide. The results are shown in the following table:

4.3.5 The table shows the percentage scores for the service as a whole against each key activity category. Achievement of better practice was particularly apparent in the categories for the marriage service and personnel and staff development. Areas identified that fell below standard were connected with facilities and accommodation, and accessibility issues. Certain standards were not easy to assess for some offices and this is shown by the column headed `not scored'.

4.3.6 The findings from this assessment have been used in the review of offices. Other areas for improvement have been built into the Best Value Improvement Plan as continuous improvements for the service.

4.3.7 One of the standards is worthy of particular note as it supports the approach taken for the review of register offices and outstations. It recommends the following levels of review:

County-wide Review by HM Inspector of Registration

4.3.8 HM Inspector of Registration carried out a county-wide inspection of the service between May and June 2001. This involved individual inspections of staff, meetings with the Proper Officer, consultation with Superintendent Registrars, observation of team work, a voluntary staff perceptions survey, and reports from the Registrar General's Office on the timeliness and quality of account work and Quarterly Certified Copy returns. An extract from the Inspector's report of her conclusions and recommendations is given at Appendix 8.

4.3.9 The Inspector's overall conclusion was that the standard of service delivery in Hampshire is very good, with a level standard provided across the County. She particularly congratulated the service for its forward thinking attitude towards training.

4.3.10 The review also measured the service's performance against the National Standards for Registration and the findings are shown in the Inspector's report. This demonstrated that the standards were generally met within Hampshire apart from:

· Some information leaflets for the public need updating;

· Several offices do not meet the standards for accommodation;

· Improvements are required in accuracy of accounts submitted to the General Register Office.

4.3.11 The need for adopting local performance standards was highlighted as an area for improvement together with the need for consultation with customers and stakeholders which has since been carried out. The varying standards of offices was noted with Basingstoke being the flagship. The lack of facilities for the disabled and for nursing mothers was particularly commented upon.

4.3.12 The issues arising from the Inspector's report have been built into the Best Value Improvement Plan as appropriate.

Options Appraisal and Challenge Event

4.3.13 In October 2001 four options were developed and appraised against a list of criteria. These included:

Option 1 - No change.

Option 2 - Incremental change.

Option 3 - Substantial change based around a new single registration district.

Option 4 - Changes to legislation to enable new service delivery methods, especially on-line registration to meet E-Government requirements.

4.3.14 The recommended options were: option 3 which proposed changes including the move to a single Registration District for Hampshire; and option 4, which proposed various changes in current legislation. The Options Appraisal summary is given at Appendix 2.

4.3.15 In order to challenge the options appraisal exercise and review the robustness of the work on which they had been based, a challenge event was held on 8 November 2001 involving 2 members and 5 stakeholders. A copy of the notes from this event are given at Appendix 10.

4.3.16 Those present at the challenge event thought that the Best Value Review process had been sufficiently comprehensive. They were in favour of the idea of a single registration district but any rationalisation of offices must be balanced against the geographic accessibility of the service. This concern was echoed by the members of the Recreation and Heritage PRC at their meeting on 15 November 2001. Members agreed that a review of the Registration Service offices should be carried out against clear criteria. They were also in favour of a letter being prepared which asks Central Government to consider changes in legislation, as set out in option 4, if these issues are not covered by the impending report of the National review of the Registration Service.

Review and Assessment of Register offices and Outstations

4.3.17 The Best Value Review has identified a number of shortcomings of register offices and outstations relating in particular to lack of suitable access for people with disabilities and parents with pushchairs; poor decorations and conditions in some offices; the physical layout of offices and lack of separate waiting areas for different types of customers, e.g. death informants. In addition, some offices used as out stations are rarely needed and some have not been used within the last 1 to 5 years.

4.3.18 Option 3 recommending a single registration district, also proposed the rationalisation of current offices with the closure of offices which were little used and/or did not meet required standards. Members and stakeholders expressed concern that proposals for office closures took account of the need to maintain adequate geographical service access for the communities affected. A review of all register offices and out stations has been carried out and a report is given at Appendix 3. This review recommends closure of certain offices which do not meet minimum standards. The review concludes that these closures will not adversely affect the local communities and will be supported by use of the peripatetic service for customers unable to travel to register offices. The main conclusions of the report are that the following outstations should be recommended for closure:

District	Outstations recommended for closure
Alton	Whitehill Grayshott
Droxford	Denmead
New Forest	Holbury Lyndhurst
North East Hants	Hartley Wintney Odiham Yateley
Petersfield	Horndean

4.3.19 There will need to be extensive consultation with the communities affected by the proposed closures, staff and other stakeholders. This requirement has been included in the Improvement Plan.

4.3.20 Regardless of office closures, the change to a single registration district will require notices informing the public of the proposed change, consultation with relevant stakeholders including staff, and a request to the Registrar General to prepare a draft scheme which will amalgamate the ten Hampshire Districts into one District. The issues that will need to be resolved include:

_ Designation of a main office for Hampshire

_ Appointment of one Superintendent Registrar for Hampshire supported by additional or deputy Superintendent Registrars/Managers as appropriate

_ Re-designation of some register office marriage rooms as approved premises

_ Storage of registers.

4.3.21 Under current legislation only one Register Office and Superintendent Registrar is statutorily required for one District. Due to its central location and proximity to Head quarters, the Winchester Register Office has been recommended as the main office within a new single Hampshire District. There will be a need to appoint one Superintendent Registrar for Hampshire. Therefore at least 7 of the Superintendent Registrars currently acting in the 10 separate Districts in Hampshire will need to be re-designated as additional or deputy Superintendent Registrars/Managers.

4.3.22 Other offices within a District are Sub-Districts or out stations and do not have marriage rooms or strong rooms on site. Current marriage rooms, apart from Winchester, will therefore need to be re-designated as approved premises and charges to couples maintained at the level of the main register office marriage room.

4.3.23 Resolving issues over the storage of registers is less straightforward however. Current legislation requires registers to be kept within the custody of the Superintendent Registrar and this usually means storage at the main register office. One of the issues which may be included in the recommended changes in legislation to Central Government is to relax this requirement over the physical proximity of registers. There is no capacity at the Winchester Register office to store additional registers. Safes and strong-rooms where registers are currently stored are reaching capacity and/or are not of a standard required to keep the registers in good condition - indeed some records are already deteriorating. Ideally, registers should be stored at the Hampshire Records Office which has the required conditions for preservation and security of registers.

4.4 Competition

4.4.1 The Registration Service is not in competition in regard to registrations of births and deaths as these are required by law to be registered in the registration district in which they occur. The service is also not in competition with those performing religious marriage ceremonies.

4.4.2 However, the Service does actively promote Hampshire as a special place in which to marry, to its own residents and those from outside of the county. Although most couples wish to marry close to the area in which most of their relatives live, many are now choosing to marry in areas much further away.

4.4.3 Offering choice to the public has been the Service's main objective. In addition to its own marriage rooms at Register offices, there are now 88 approved premises across the county. These are advertised in the Service's attractive marriage brochure and are also on the County Council's website. This enables couples to choose the venue which meets with their wishes for their wedding and matches their economic means. The venues range from a stately home, prestigious hotels to community and parish halls. Register office weddings are still popular where couples may not wish to have a reception, or have their reception at home or at a restaurant.

4.5 Sustainability

4.5.1 Sustainability was considered by the Review Team at their meeting on 3 October 2001, and discussion was facilitated by a member of the County's Environmental Challenge Team.

4.5.2 Each of the four proposed options were evaluated against sustainability primarily in regard to ways in which travel by both staff and the public can be reduced, and the benefit of raising environmental awareness with the public concerning the use of disposable nappies. Information leaflets about alternative nappies and also the nappy cleaning service have been requested and will be brought to the attention of people registering births at all Register Offices.

4.5.3 Option 3 which proposes a move to a single registration district will help to reduce the need for the public to travel to specific Register offices. Option 4 which seeks to develop on-line services will eliminate the need for travel.

4.6 Crime and Disorder

4.6.1 The Registration Service already has an important responsibility in referring to the Coroner any suspicious reportable causes of, or uncertified, deaths. The service is likely to be affected by changes in the law following the Harold Shipman case.

4.6.2 The Service also has duties under the Asylum and Immigration Act to ensure each individual is willing to be married and has not been coerced against their will.

4.6.3 Crime and disorder was included as a criterion against which each of the four proposed options were evaluated. The move to a single registration district (option 3) will offer marginal improvement in helping to detect bogus marriages. On-line registration and the availability of electronic information (option 4) will eliminate the need for certificate issue and thereby prevent illegal use of certificates.

4.7 Equalities

4.7.1 Equalities is seen as a priority issue for the Registration Service in view of its direct link with the public.

4.7.2 As part of an independent pilot study by staff from the Personnel and Training Department, an Equalities Assessment of the Registration Service was carried out in October 2001. A copy of the report is given at Appendix 11.

4.7.3 The assessment was carried out by interviewing people within the service, and visits to 3 offices. Where possible, physical evidence to support the statements made by interviewees was obtained or viewed.

4.7.4 The general observations from the study state that it was clear the Registration Service and its staff members take the subject of Equalities extremely seriously. Five recommendations for improvement were made as follows:

_ The policies and strategy to achieve equalities should be more visible and take into account staff perceptions.

_ A staff perceptions survey should be conducted.

_ The management team should consider how the evidence of Equalities being met could be made more visible.

_ Consideration to an ongoing assessment of Customer Satisfaction should be given and this would specifically include equalities issues.

_ Keep up the good work already being carried out.

These recommendations have been built into the Best Value Improvement plan.

4.8 E-Government

4.8.1 The potential for the introduction of e-Government within the Registration Service is currently constrained by legislation. Depending on the outcome of the National Review of the Registration Service, option 4 proposes challenging the Government to review and change legislation to allow on-line registration to take place.

4.8.2 The current IT provision within offices and the need for improvements, particularly in order to access the internet, has been reviewed. Plans for improvement will be dependent upon the outcome of the review of offices and will be covered within the Best Value improvement plan

5. Member input

Member involvement with the review process has been as follows:

· A presentation was made by the Head of Regulatory Services to members of the Recreation and Heritage Best Value Review Panel on 9 March 2001. This included the Registration Service's background, challenges faced and the approach proposed for Best Value.

· The Best Value scoping reports: Service Specification and Project Brief, were presented to the Recreation and Heritage Best Value Review Panel on 26 March 2001 and were approved. Two members were nominated to be involved with the review but, owing to the General Election and the restructuring of the County Council's political arrangements to form a new Cabinet, these members were unable to participate in the review.

· Following establishment of the new meetings structure, the Registration Best Value Review became the responsibility of the Recreation and Heritage Policy Review Committee in September 2001. Two members were nominated to participate in the review: Councillor Mrs. S. Allbright and Councillor K. Chapman.

· Councillor Mrs. Allbright and Councillor Chapman were involved in the challenge event which took place on 8 November 2001.

· A report on the options appraisal and challenge was taken to the Recreation and Heritage PRC on 15 November 2001.

6. Lessons Learnt

The most important lessons that have been learnt from this review include:

· The need to collect data early - difficulty was experienced in this review with obtaining information from other authorities for benchmarking purposes. This was mainly due to other authorities having the Registration Service later in their programmes for Best Value and not being ready to share information at this stage.

· The allocation of adequate time and resources for the review.

· Ensuring appropriate member involvement is achieved throughout the process.

· Ensuring that staff are involved throughout the process.

· Keeping the review effort in proportion to the size and nature of the service. In particular remembering to focus only on those areas that are going to lead to service and value adding improvements.

· Ensuring good records are maintained throughout the review.

7. Conclusions

7.1 The key conclusions drawn from this review are:

I. Users hold the service in high regard particularly the professionalism and sensitivity displayed by individual registration staff.

II. The service could be significantly improved by changing to a single registration district instead of the current ten separate districts. Such change will eliminate restrictions on the public and enable them to use the office of their choice. In addition there will be a reduction in work for registration staff by eliminating the need to take registration declarations. This proposal will need consultation with staff, notification to the public and recommendation to/approval by the Registrar General.

III. The review of offices has identified potential for rationalising the number of offices within the County while preserving reasonable geographical access. Offices that are recommended for closure are those which fall below minimum standards. Further details are given in the report at Appendix 3. It is also proposed that office rationalisation is supplemented with an improved peripatetic service and partnership arrangements with Districts where appropriate. These proposals will need to be subject to public and staff consultation.

IV. Improvements are needed to ensure that all remaining offices meet required standards. Improvements needed include:

· Suitable accessibility for disabled people and parents with young children and pushchairs.

· Building maintenance and redecoration.

· Improved and separate waiting areas for people registering deaths, where possible.

· Increased opening hours.

· Reception facilities.

· IT provision and links.

V. Current legislation places restrictions on service delivery methods namely: on-line registrations; extended marriage times; the statutory status of officers; limitations on introducing new services; the custody of records; and charging policies. While changes may arise from the recent National Review of the Registration Service, this review proposes that legislative changes are recommended to Central Government if they are not covered in the Government's report.

VI. The review has also highlighted various incremental improvements that can be made to the service arising from the consultation exercises, the EFQM assessment, HM Inspector's report and other review exercises. These incremental improvements have been built into the Improvement Plan.

7.2 Benchmarking information has demonstrated that the Registration Service compares favourably with other authorities in regard to financial and service performance.

7.3 The four options that have been identified and appraised are shown at Appendix 2. The key elements of the preferred options of 3 and 4 are included in 7.1 above.

8. Summary Recommendations

The following are the recommendations of the review team which are reflected in the Improvement Plan given at Appendix 1.

1. That consultations take place with staff, and notices are placed for the public as appropriate, with a view to restructuring the Registration Service to a single registration district, and recommendation is made to the Registrar General.

2. That consultations take place with staff and the public in regard to the rationalisation of offices and the closure of specific offices that fall below minimum standards.

3. That a programme of improvements is planned and implemented for remaining offices to ensure they meet required standards including accessibility, maintenance and decoration, waiting areas, reception facilities and IT links/provision.

4. That legislative changes be recommended to Central Government in regard to service delivery methods outlined in option 4 (see report at Appendix 2), should the Government's report on the national review of the registration service not cover these issues.

The following are recommendations for incremental improvements which have been identified by this review:

5. That the service plan is updated to reflect Best Value outcomes and objectives for the service over the next 5 years particularly in regard to establishing sound foundations for performance management.

6. That further consultation with customers and stakeholders is planned as appropriate for 2002 particularly in the light of changes implemented following this review.

7. That, if changes in legislation permit, new services are planned and introduced, e.g. on-line registration, naming ceremonies and commemorative certificates.

8. That a range of service delivery improvements, outlined within the Best Value Improvement Plan, are implemented.

9. That improvements are made in regard to staff development and involvement, as outlined within the Best Value Improvement Plan.

10. That the effectiveness of internal communications and information requirements are reviewed and improved.

Section 100D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report:

records of the Best Value Registration Service review team meetings and working papers of the Best Value Review, held by the Review Team Project Manager.