The CORE project
111. Moves have already been made by the Government
towards the creation of a register as described above. The CORE
(Co-ordinated On-line Register of Electors) project was announced
to Parliament in January 2004, and is managed by the ODPM and
co-sponsored by the Department for Constitutional Affairs. It
is designed to modernise the electoral registration process by
introducing standardised electronic registers across the country
and subsequently putting in place a national system to provide
authorised users on-line access to electoral registration data.
There are two phases to the project. The first will standardise
local electronic registers across the country and make them fully
interoperable, regardless of the local system in use. The second
phase will allow authorised users to access local registration
data centrally and will support a multi-channelled, e-enabled
general election. CORE will not replace the locally-compiled registers
but would require them to be produced in a compliant way, with
a copy submitted to the Government for incorporation in a national
database.
112. There is widespread support for the CORE project
and witnesses were keen to stress its importance. For example,
the Electoral Commission told us that
the CORE project is a vital first step towards
individual registration. It is also vital in terms of the needs
right now, the needs not just of the Commission, but also critically
of the political parties to be able to undertake their obligations
under the current legislation in terms of the declaration of donations.[255]
The three main political parties agreed with this
assessment of the value of CORE, with the Conservative party telling
us that "we are fully signed up to the creation of a national
register" and the Liberal Democrats voicing the "broad
consensus that there is a deep level of frustration at the huge
variation in data standards and quality of data on the register".[256]
113. This goodwill makes the lack of apparent progress
on the CORE project of particular concern. The Liberal Democrats
complained that "there have been various projects and various
consultations over the years on which all the main parties have
given very similar views and we keep on each year, or each few
months, being asked for our views again and giving the same views
again and the process does not seem to move forward."[257]
This in part refers to the Local Authority Secure Electoral Register
(LASER) project, a forerunner of CORE, which was supposed to achieve
the same kind of goals but which ran into the ground. As to the
latest initiative, there seems now to be an impasse on agreeing
the data standards to be applied in compiling the local registers.
Blame for this delay was variously attributed to the Government
and to the Electoral Commission by the Conservative and Liberal
Democrat parties and to "an inter-departmental quagmire at
an official level" by the Labour party.[258]
114. Ministers implied that the hitch was the responsibility
of the Electoral Commission, with the Minister for Regional and
Local Government and Fire, ODPM, telling us that "we cannot
act without a recommendation from [the Commission on data standards],
so their involvement is absolutely critical. They do have other
pressures on their time at the moment which have perhaps acted
as a slight inhibitor."[259]
Mr Raynsford also argued that CORE was in fact "making reasonably
good progress": "we have carried out a fairly detailed
consultation on the arrangements necessary to put in place the
systems to ensure consistent gathering of information by local
authority registration officers. We are now moving towards the
second phase of the project which will be concerned with data
standards".[260]
The Government intend that that phase should be completed in
time for the October 2005 canvass so that "we will have the
basis for a single national compatible register drawn from all
the individual local registers by early in 2006."[261]
This has slipped a year from the original proposal of using 2004
data.[262]
115. We have a number of concerns about the CORE
project. First, we are not impressed by the progress made so
far and by the delays in the timetable, nor by the shifting of
the blame on this issue. Action must be taken by the ODPM as owners
of this project to ensure that no further deadlines are missed
and that the project reaches fruition. We recommend that the
ODPM work to an absolute target of being in a position to use
the 2005 canvass as the basis for a national register through
the CORE project and that it publish a timetable with milestones
for the completion of the CORE project.
116. Secondly, we are concerned that the ODPM has
yet to consult the Information Commissioner on the data protection
implications of the project. The Deputy Information Commissioner
told us that "we normally expect government departments to
consult us" on projects such as this.[263]
The Minister for Regional and Local Government and Fire, ODPM,
asserted that the Government had "every intention of consulting
the Information Commissioner on the second stage [of CORE], which
is about access to information, where the issues to do with data
protection arise" but had not thought it necessary to do
so when consulting on "technical issues to do with the software
systems and the language".[264]
We believe that when embarking on a £12 million project
of this sort it is vital to take advice on the principle at the
outset. We recommend that the ODPM consult the Information
Commissioner without delay on the likely data protection issues
of the CORE project so that his views can be accommodated in its
design.
117. Thirdly, there is room to doubt the efficiency
of the project management. We received warnings from the UK Computing
Research Committee about the importance of project definition
and the problems often encountered in building electronic systems.[265]
The CORE project is dealing with highly sensitive data and is
expected to play an important role in a process which demands
public confidence. It cannot be allowed to go wrong. The Electoral
Commission called in its evidence for the Government to "make
clear its view of the relationship between the CORE project and
other projects" connected with the modernisation agenda.[266]
Since this is one of the purposes behind the CORE project, we
are concerned that the Electoral Commission sees this need for
further clarity and anxious that it should be provided by the
Government in order that the project definition of CORE is established
now rather than midway through the project. We recommend that
the Government set out without delay the relationship between
the CORE project and the other projects which form part of the
electoral modernisation agenda and that the project definition
of CORE be adjusted accordingly.
118. We recognise
that the introduction of individual registration may have to await
the completion of the CORE project in order for it to be implemented
smoothly. There may therefore be an argument that decisions about
the whole question of individual registration should be delayed
until it is certain that CORE is going to deliver the necessary
support structure. Nevertheless, it is also clear that work and
time may be wasted if the project is carried out on the basis
of a national household register only and decisions are later
taken to change to some form of individual registration. While
the date for the possible introduction of individual registration
may depend upon the successful realisation of a national register,
care should be taken to ensure that the system could accommodate
the demands of individual registration, and the opportunities
it brings, with minimum modification and disruption.
243 
