Supplementary Memorandum by the Department
for Constitutional Affairs and the Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister (VOT 01(a))
1. This note responds to requests for information
from the Committees on the issues of the split of responsibilities
between the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Office
of the Deputy Prime Minister; the cost of individual registration;
and the Citizen Information Project, on which information has
been provided by the Registrar General for England and Wales.
DCA AND ODPM'S
DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES
2. The Department for Constitutional Affairs
and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have concurrent responsibility
for the legislation and policy on elections. Since the ODPM takes
responsibility for local government issues, it focuses on local
government election issues, whilst the Department for Constitutional
Affairs has responsibility for Parliamentary and European Parliamentary
elections, as well as all issues connected with elections that
affect the whole of the United Kingdom. Thus DCA are responsible
for overall policy for registration and lead on individual registration,
whilst ODPM take the lead on initiatives such as the Co-ordinated
Online Register of Electors (CORE) which relates to locally based
and maintained registers. Obviously there is read-across between
the two and any need for legislation at a national level to support
CORE will be taken forward jointly.
3. The Project Board for the Individual
Registration Project and associated work (such as anonymous registration)
is made up of officials from DCA, ODPM, Northern Ireland Office
and the Electoral Commission. These bodies are also represented
on a Working Group, along with representatives from the Scottish
Office, Association of Electoral Administrators, Scottish Assessors
Association, Electoral Office for Northern Ireland, and two electoral
administrators with a specific particular interest in the topic.
4. The all-postal pilots in June 2004 are
a good example of the joint-working process—DCA led the
development of policy and legislation with input from ODPM colleagues.
Both DCA and ODPM lawyers contributed to the drafting of the legislation,
and a jointly-chaired Project Board (which also included an Electoral
Commission official and other stakeholder representatives) oversaw
the implementation of the legislation.
5. Other examples of DCA and ODPM working
together with stakeholders include:
— An over-arching Programme Board
(which also includes members from devolved administrations and
territorial offices, local Government and the Electoral Commission)
which oversees the strategic element of our work;
— Building on the learning from
the European Parliamentary and Local Elections Pilots in June
and ODPM's experience in conducting pilot schemes at local elections
to take forward the modernisation strategy;
— The development of proposals
for electronic registers (CORE Project);
— Accreditation of e-voting suppliers
and wider e-voting initiatives;
— Referendums legislation—DCA
has responsibility for the generic legislation for referendums
under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000
whilst ODPM is responsible for regional assembly referendums both
in the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 and the secondary
legislation that underpinned the referendum in the North East
on 4 November last year;
— Considering the Electoral Commission's
proposals for electoral reform in its Voting for Change and Delivering
Democracy? reports—the Government's responses to which were
published in December 2004.
6. Whether DCA or ODPM takes the lead, officials
from both Departments are involved and ministers kept informed
of progress.
7. DCA and ODPM also work closely with a
wide range of other Government Departments in relation to the
development of electoral policy, including registration. These
include the Office for National Statistics on the Citizen Information
Project, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the enfranchisement
of Gibraltar and referendum issues.
COST ASSESSMENT
OF INDIVIDUAL
REGISTRATION
8. Our initial assessment—based on
the Commission's recommendation—was that administration
of individual registration could cost an additional £23 million
in the first year and an additional £6 million every year
thereafter. Any such additional costs would have to be covered
by central government under the new burdens principle.
9. The costs incorporated within this estimate
include:
— updating computer systems;
— providing additional training;
— increased printing and distribution
costs;
— increased data collection and processing
costs.
10. The current estimate does not include
promotional activity, the cost of which is likely to be substantial.
It also does not factor in savings from a possible move away from
the current system of an annual canvass. More detailed costing
work will be completed prior to any decision to move forward with
individual registration.
CITIZEN INFORMATION
PROJECT (NOTE
PROVIDED BY
LEN COOK,
REGISTRAR GENERAL
FOR ENGLAND
AND WALES)
Vision
The vision of CIP is to provide a shared national
infrastructure of basic personal data, so as to facilitate major
economies, efficiencies and service improvements in the public
sector.
This is to support:
— the Efficiency Review agenda,
especially to improve back office services;
— departments in achieving their
PSA targets and in designing further improvements to public services,
including more personalized services;
— the rollout of the e-government
delivery programme, which is about improved customer service,
including increasing the provision and take-up of transactional
services; and
— improved policy analysis, research
and National Statistics.
Background
The underlying ideas about what is known as
the Citizen Information Project originated from the possibility
of efficiency gain across public sector services that could be
generated by having an accurate database of contact information
on people, which all public services could access.
A feasibility study was announced in July 2002.
It was undertaken by the General Register Office (E&W) with
close involvement from the Treasury between October 2002 and June
2003. The study concluded that a population register was technically,
legally and organisationally possible.
The feasibility study reported to PSX(e) chaired
by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury who recommended to the
Prime Minister and cabinet colleagues that the project move forward
to Project Definition. The Chief Secretary and the Registrar General
(E&W) announced the Project Definition stage on 6 January
2004.
CIP Project Definition—1st stage
The first phase of project definition was used to
test the validity of the assumptions made in the feasibility study.
The project team considered alternative options in the light of
the ongoing development of the Identity cards programme and explored
synergies between the proposed population register and the National
Identity Register (NIR) which will be established to record basic
identity information should Parliament agree the Identity Cards
Bill which completed its Committee Stage in the House of Commons
on 27 January 2005.
The feasibility study had set out in broad terms
the potential benefits that might be derived from a national population
register. The first six months of this stage identified some fundamental
features of such a system and identified a number of alternative
options for delivering benefits from a register.
The outcome of this work was that whilst the
CIP team had identified a population register would generate efficiency
benefits across government many of these benefits could also be
realised by the National Identity register. It was assessed that
building both the NIR and a separate population register was not
cost effective.
The Chief Secretary announced the acceptance
of this recommendation by the government on the 28 October 2004.
The objective of CIP project definition—2nd
stage
It is planned to complete the project definition
stage and to report to the Chief Secretary in spring 2005, in
line with the agreed timetable. It is expected that this will
cover:
— ways of achieving the long term
vision that the National Identity Register should be used to meet
the CIP vision for improving the efficiency of public services
and providing a better basis for analysis, research and National
Statistics; and
— shorter term, cost effective
proposals for making better use of contact information held on
existing registers or covered in other developments, in ways that
lead towards the long term vision.
How does CIP link to Voter Registration
In line with the CIP Vision it is important
that departmental thinking around new or improved databases is
"joined up". Therefore although there is no direct relationship
between CIP and Voter Registration, the Office of the Registrar
General for England and Wales fully supports the Home Office Memorandum
which indicates a willingness to examine how the ID Cards scheme
can offer benefits to a future Voter Registration scheme. This
work will include exploring the feasibility of linking the National
Identity Register to electronic voter databases as there may be
valuable benefits to be derived by such a link.
| 
