Public and Commercial Services Union

22 October 2009

LR ATP announcements – initial PCS response and the way forward

Introduction

All staff (those in the office, anyway) have today received a presentation on the outline of the Board’s ATP proposals. Both PCS and FDA unions (DTUS) have been consulted on the communications issued and have been given the opportunity to ask questions and lodge initial (without prejudice) submissions. Both unions have signalled rejection of, and opposition to, the proposals.

This briefing outlines the current situation and examines the way forward. At the time of writing, we are awaiting disclosure of the business case, put by the Board to MOJ ministers and HM Treasury etc. When we have had a chance to fully scrutinise this, we will issue a more detailed circular. The business case will be made available, at some stage, to all staff.

Although the proposals are far reaching and, if implemented, would have a detrimental impact on all staff, today’s announcement merely signals the start of the formal consultation period. We fully appreciate the levels of anxiety these proposals will induce, particularly for those in offices earmarked for closure and those in jobs highlighted for outsourcing, but there is a long way to go (detailed below) before any proposals are implemented.

Details of the way forward, including membership consultation, are covered later in this bulletin.

The Proposals

Estate:

Management have already communicated that they believe we have nearly 50% more office space than we need. In view of this, they are proposing to close; Peterborough, Stevenage, Croydon, Tunbridge Wells and Portsmouth, all this to take place before the end of 2011. In addition to this, they plan to move all of the Plymouth functions into one site and relocate Head Office in central London and then immediately commence a review on whether or not to retain it in London from 2012.

Portsmouth and Croydon are earmarked to close by the end of February 2011, with Stevenage, Tunbridge Wells and Peterborough scheduled for September 2011. If these proposals are allowed to go through, there will be no operational LR presence in the South-East of England.

The Board will also look to downsize parts of the rest of the estate, through such measures as, selling off bits of buildings, sharing premises with other departments etc. There would then be a further review of the overall situation in 2011, taking into account intakes and e-services uptake etc, with the possibility of further office closure proposals. Management have indicated that this may mean a further two offices but their earlier thinking indicated it could be more.

Outsourcing/Market Testing:

From an initial list of 21 “opportunities”, the Board propose to outsource; regional filestores, IT desktop support and central printing (this includes LSAs) and facilities management.

The Board have rejected the idea of market testing these functions, which would allow existing LR staff to present an in-house bid, on the basis that this is too time consuming, costly and that potential external providers would be put off, fearing that there would not be a level playing field. This, in our view, is staggering. Notwithstanding the fact that we will actively oppose, during the formal consultations, the concept of selling off any part of LR, the Board want to prevent our staff from even being able to demonstrate that they can carry out their duties better and as efficiently as the private sector. This clearly illustrates the mind-set of the people we are up against.

There may also be potential issues in respect of shared services (with other departments) in areas like HR and counselling and support.

Process improvement:

Initially, management are looking to concentrate on the areas not taken forward for outsourcing etc. What they want to do is examine individual processes (using benchmarking etc) to see if there are ways to improve efficiency (i.e. doing more work with less people).

This obviously has the potential to adversely affect members’ terms and conditions. We are particularly mindful of the fact that senior Board members have met with counterparts in the MOJ on the issue of LEAN processing. This has created huge problems for our members in MOJ and has been the subject of an industrial action campaign in HMRC.

Overall:

All of the above proposals are about reducing headcount (to around 4500, cutting in excess of 1500 jobs) and office space. The figures are based on management’s business ethos (that we are here merely to react to the housing market) and are supported by crude productivity assumptions. The Board have even said that, if it turns out that they cut too many jobs to cope with future workflow, they will recruit additional staff (150 per year) to make up the deficit. Training people from scratch, off the street, when they are proposing to boot out highly trained and loyal staff, makes no sense at all. Hardly value for money.

PCS initial response

During the informal (in confidence) consultations, both PCS and FDA lodged initial responses. The PCS response is attached to the covering e-mail and you will notice that this is based on our mandate (provided by members) from the ballot we held earlier this year.

Over the last few months we have been able to gain an understanding of the Board’s position and their proposals, which in turn has enabled us to begin preparations for the very necessary campaign of opposition. During the formal process of consultation, when our representations will be driven by the whole membership and supplemented by political, and potentially industrial, campaigning, we will have a real opportunity to influence the outcome. At the moment, the gap is very wide between our position and the Board’s view of what Land Registry is all about. Their view is about Land Registry being there, as a business, to react to the ups and downs of the housing market. In stark contrast, we believe in returning Land Registry to a proper public service ethos, recognising the necessity to complete the land register for England and Wales. Our “Alternative Vision” will cover this point in detail and will be published in November.

The way forward

There is obviously a lot of work to do, bearing in mind that we are facing the worst attacks on our jobs and working conditions we have ever seen. Everyone needs to play an active part in the campaign by recruiting non-members, lobbying MPs etc, attending meetings and participating in any action (if this proves necessary). Full details of how the campaign will progress will emerge, as we commence the formal consultations with management. Here is a rough outline of what we will be doing:

Today, reps from all offices will be meeting to examine the ATP proposals and will be consulted on the details in respect of the membership consultation and campaigning issues.

A 12-week period of formal consultation will commence at the beginning of November. Negotiations will take place with management on the specific elements of their business plan.

From 2nd to 18th November, a series of all members’ meetings will be held and members will be balloted on rejection of the ATP proposals and the PCS bargaining agenda.

The PCS document ‘An Alternative Vision for Land Registry’ will be published in early November to support our political and public campaigning. This will be made available to all members, MPs and all interested groups.
We will be arranging meetings with Ministers and MPs to put our points across.

We will hold specific meetings with those members threatened with outsourcing.

PCS will be producing Campaigning material including petitions and template letters to MPs to allow all members to take part in the campaign.
We will be utilising the full weight and support of our National Executive Committee, who will treat the ATP proposals (cuts and privatisation in LR) as an attack on the whole of the PCS membership. We are already in the process of setting up a campaign group, involving senior national PCS officers.

Conclusion

Full details, in respect of the above, will become clearer as we commence the membership consultation exercise. The fact that your local reps are meeting today, hopefully illustrates the urgency and importance we place on dealing with the Board’s proposals.

When we receive the actual ATP business case, we will provide a more in depth response to both the proposals and the justification for them. We have already challenged these on a basic level, during the initial consultations. Much of what they propose is about cost and value for money. In addition to the points made above, we will also be highlighting the incredible amount of money being spent on the ATP project itself. A full report will be presented to the PCS parliamentary group and Ministers.

Make no mistake; we have not faced anything quite like this before. The state of the job market, coupled with the uncertainties surrounding the review of our Compensation Scheme, could potentially be plunging our “at risk” members into poverty. If the proposals are implemented, life will also be tough for those not (immediately) at risk. The spectre of further closures would remain and working conditions (through process improvement, individual performance management and the possibility of performance pay) would be severely hit.

The fight-back begins now. All members need to make sure they attend their consultation meeting – details will be published soon. We also need a massive turnout in the ballot.

Everybody needs to play a full part in the campaign and we need to make a huge effort to recruit the remaining non-union members ASAP. We are faced with a huge challenge over the next couple of months but, if we stick together and utilise the collective voice and strength of our Trade Union, our campaign will bear fruit. If we don’t achieve an acceptable outcome, through reason, during the consultation period, let’s be ready to fight for it.

On behalf of your Group Executive Committee

Note:

Any initial questions/comments, please pass to your branch secretary. These will be passed on to the ATP negotiators, who will take the points forward in consultations with management. We will also compile a Q&A paper, based on your initial responses.