In Thursday's debate about junk mail in the House of Lords, the election campaign organiser for the Lib Dems, Lord Razzal, made an interesting point in support of junk mail. He said:

"The Nobel Lord the Minister would accept that anyone who is in charge of political campaigning is unlikely to wish to see restrictions on unsolicited, or unwanted, mail. This of course would stop political campaigning as we know it."

It's a fair point, which has in the past also been put forward by both Royal Mail and the Direct Marketing Association. In short, the argument is that it's impossible to know what unsolicited items people do and don't want to receive and that it's therefore best to do nothing to reduce junk mail. It's also the reason why Royal Mail and the Direct Marketing Association give people who want to register with opt-out schemes for unaddressed mail (the Door-to-Door Opt-Out and Your Choice Preference Scheme) rather draconian warnings about the consequences of opting out.

The argument, I reckon, is only true in a narrow / philosophical sense. In practice, it's quite clear what people do and don't want to get through their letter box. Most people don't mind non-commercial items, such as a leaflet from their local ward councillor or a street newsletter. It's also quite clear what most do object to; commercial advertisements, such as take-away menus.

This distinction between commercial and non-commercial advertising mail is quite useful and already common in countries such as Australia and Canada. It makes opt-out schemes for unaddressed mail redundant (as it removed the need to make sure people make 'an informed decision') and it means people not interested in unaddressed advertising leaflets only need to put a 'No Junk Mail' sign on their letter box.

Stop Junk Mail's anti-junk mail stickers stickers (see images below) are based on the signs you can see on letter boxes all over the Netherlands. They not only separate commercial and non-commercial leaflets but also give people the option to stop free local newspapers. Reducing junk mail can really be that easy. In Holland, when you put a 'No Junk Mail' sign on your door the postman will stop delivering door-to-door items with immediate effect. Back in the sorting room he will mark your pigeon hole to ensure that no further leaflets are delivered to your house. It's quick, effective and customer friendly.

Junk mail was debated in the House of Lords yesterday. Hereditary Peer Lord Selsdon claimed that the average British household receives two tonnes of junk mail a year and wanted to know from Government spokesman Lord Brett what the Government is doing about unwanted mail.

The figure of two tonnes - although not queried by Lord Brett - is of course well off the mark. It's estimated that every year 550,000 tonnes of junk mail is pushed through Britain's 27 million letter boxes. That makes 0.02 tonnes (20 kilos / 45 pounds) of junk mail per household per year; somehow Lord Selsdon multiplied this figure by 100.

Anyway, Lord Brett told his fellow Lords that the Government has a voluntary agreement with the Direct Marketing Association which covers the promotion of schemes that allow householders to opt out of receiving unwanted mail. He mentioned that the Government had 'encouraged' ('forced' would have been more correct) the Direct Marketing Association to develop the new Your Choice Preference Scheme and that Royal Mail also operates an opt-out service (the Door-to-Door Opt-Out).

Unfortunately, this did not lead to a discussion about whether or not the voluntary agreement and the various opt-out schemes are of much use to householders. As far as I'm concerned both the Door-to-Door Opt-Out and Your Choice scheme are obscure and completely ineffective. Anyone looking at the details of how these schemes have been set up will agree that it at least appears to be the case that Royal Mail and the Direct Marketing Association want to make reducing unsolicited mail as difficult as it can possibly be.

Yet, Lord Selsdon was "happy" with the answer he got and went on to make some "lighthearted" remarks about setting up a new Government Department of Rubbish and Refuse. Had he looked at the Stop Junk Mail website in preparation for the debate he might have wanted to ask some supplementary questions. Personally, if I were a Lord, I would have asked the following five questions:

1. Is the Government content with the fact that less than 0.5 per cent of households are currently registered with Royal Mail's Door-to-Door Opt-Out (when an estimated 15 per cent of households is registered with the Mailing Preference Service)?
2. Can the Government encourage Royal Mail to start telling people registered with the Door-to-Door Opt-Out that their registration will automatically expire after two years time and that Royal Mail will not ask householders whether or not they want the opt-out to continue?
3. Is the Government aware of the fact that householders who opt out are currently not in a position to complain about any unaddressed junk mail they receive, for the reason that it is practically impossible to find out if an item has been delivered by Royal Mail, a member of the Direct Marketing Association or someone else?
4. Can the Government explain why it has not encouraged the Direct Marketing Association to set up the Your Choice scheme along the lines of the Mailing Preference Service, for instance by giving householders the option to opt out online?
5. Does the Government agree with Postwatch that Royal Mail and the Direct Marketing Association are trying to persuade customers not to opt out of receiving unaddressed mail by using 'scare tactics'?

What inspired me to conduct a door-to-door opt-out survey is that only recently I experienced myself how Royal Mail simply ignores requests to stop delivering unaddressed items. In fact, I started receiving more junk mail from my postie; on two occasions I got no less than six pieces of junk mail on a single day.

When I complained to Royal Mail about this I first got this e-mail advising me to register with the Mailing Preference Service. After I had explained that my complaint was about unaddressed mail delivered by Royal Mail - and not about addressed advertising mail, I got an e-mail asking me to ring 08457 034 599 to find out whether or not Royal Mail had in fact delivered the items I had complained about. The 0845 number turned out to be the number of the Direct Marketing Association. Obviously, they were unable to confirm anything; they have nothing to do with unaddressed mail delivered by Royal Mail.

The next e-mail asked me to post all the original leaflets to Royal Mail Customer Services - costing me £1.24 in postage. In the end this did sort the issue; two months after I had first complained I got a letter acknowledging that the service I had received was "unacceptable" and that "action had been taken" to make sure I would no longer receive Royal Junk Mail.

I have not received a single unaddressed item from the postman since. But… how many people are willing to go through a process like this? I reckon most people would simply give up, concluding that junk mail is just as unavoidable as death and the tax man.

The survey has been set up to try to persuade Royal Mail to improve the service it's providing. When you use the opt-out form on our website to stop junk mail delivered by Royal Mail, please do tick the box to say you're happy for us to ask you in about three months time how effective opting out has been. [ The opt-out form no longer exists - JB ].

Tonight I finished editing Stop Junk Mail's second YouTube video. It shows an episode of the (fake) TV series Secret Past on Channel Norfolk (also fake), in which 'Fred' reveals how he once did a job that cost him his marriage, friends and self-esteem?

Many thanks to Tom Carver (the interviewer), Mick Hardy (Fred), Emma Jarvis (voice-over) and Eloise O'Hare (co-producer and inspiration).

The other day I predicted there would be lots of news about junk mail send to the deceased, after the Deceased Preference Service (DPS) had started copying the marketing strategy of the Bereavement Register. I was right.

For a number of years now, the Bereavement Register sends regular press releases to mainly local newspapers highlighting the upset caused by junk mail send to the deceased. Journalists often publish these press releases unedited, giving the Bereavement Register lots of positive and free publicity. The DPS has started doing the same thing and yesterday got into the Daily Telegraph again.

They've made a bit more of an effort than the Bereavement Register and actually organised a mock funeral procession in central London. The DPS has paid the Telegraph for a sponsored article featuring a video of the procession showing four women walking behind a 'junk mail coffin'. The above image is a close-up of the coffin.

The DPS' research into how much junk mail is being send to the deceased is also a bit more advanced. The DPS claims to have established that people who die in northern cities receive the most junk mail (see the table below).

Naturally, the article in the Telegraph doesn't ask a single critical question. For instance, the paper doesn't wonder how it's possible that incredible amounts of junk mail are send to people who have died despite there being two well-established opt-out schemes. Could this perhaps have anything to do with the fact that bulk mailers often choose not to use 'deceased suppression files' because the Bereavement Register and DPS ask vast sums of money for obtaining a copy these files?

In short, when I hear the DPS talking about how "heartbreaking" it is when people ring them to report that they are receiving junk mail addressed to a deceased loved-one, I feel a bit sick. Helping these people is really not their aim. On the contrary, they're in the business of making a profit out of their misery.

Finally then, the top 10 of cities which the DPS fails is - according to their own figures - as follows: