The Daily Fascist, a newspaper always active on the junk mail front, has just broken the news that Government is to hold a public consultation on the question whether or not to abolish the Edited Electoral Register.

To refresh your memory, in July this year the Information Commissioner recommended that local Councils stop selling voters' personal information to bulk mailers (or indeed anyone prepared to pay a small fee). The Commissioner's report stated that "selling the edited register is an unsatisfactory way for local authorities to treat personal information" and that it "sends a particularly poor message to the public that personal information collected for something as vital as participation in the democratic process can be sold to 'anyone for any purpose'."

Although it's good news that the issue will now finally be discussed, one wonders why a full public consultation is needed. There simply is no good argument against abolishing the register. It's the primary source for the creation of junk mail lists and for voters there's absolutely no advantage whatsoever in being on the register.

The only reason for its existence seems to be that it allows local Councils to generate some extra income. But even that argument is flawed. Recent research by the Local Government Association found that councils receive an average of £1,900 annually for selling voters' personal details. Scrapping the edited roll would have an negligible financial impact on local authorities.

What's more, the survey also found that 98 per cent of elections officers in councils around the country agree that the Government should change the law to prevent marketeers from gaining access to the electoral register and that almost 90 per cent believe the practice of selling the electoral roll discourages people from registering to vote.

Nevertheless, it looks like the register will be around for a little while longer. If you're not sure if you've opted out, or if you would like to opt out, it would make sense to contact your local elections office.

The Local Government Association (LGA) today published the results of a survey into how elections officers in councils around the country feel about having to sell the edited version of the electoral register to junk mailers. It clearly shows local Councils overwhelmingly support the Information Commissioner's recommendation to ban this practice. No less than 98 per cent of election officers agree that the Government should change the law. Furthermore, 89 per cent of the officers surveyed believe that the practice of selling the electoral roll discourages people from registering to vote.

In its press release [ link removed in April 2012 as the page no longer exists, JB ] the LGA fiercly critisised the Government for its reluctance to do anything that might upset the Direct Marketing Association. The Deputy Chairman of the LGA said:

"The new survey clearly shows that town halls hugely resent having to pass the electoral roll to direct marketing companies. Most people hate junk mail and cold calling and councils don't want to be a part of the process that generates money for junk mail companies in this way.

"Selling the electoral roll undermines democracy, dissuades people from voting and gives people the impression that the council is profiting from selling their personal information. Ministers must change the law to ban junk mail firms from getting their information through the electoral roll.

"Keeping two separate electoral rolls is fiddly, costly and frankly a pain in the backside for councils. A change in the law would cut down on the junk mail that can infuriate homeowners and would also be a way of boosting the number of people who register to vote at a time when turnout is at an all-time low."

The Chief Executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators added that selling the electoral register is fundamentally wrong and called on the Government to act:

"We have constantly argued that the electoral register should be used for one purpose only, namely, the conduct of elections. Other uses compromise the register's democratic legitimacy and clearly act as a significant deterrent to the aim of persuading all eligible electors to register. The results of this survey are therefore not at all surprising.

"What is surprising is that, despite these and similar findings and the clear recommendation from the Data Sharing Review, there is still no real indication that the Government will act to remove the need for an edited register and the use of electoral registration information for such purposes."

Yesterday, I wrote about the recent recommendation by the Information Commissioner to abolish the edited version of the electoral register. Unsurprisingly, Direct Marketing Association is not a happy bunny. In its media statement [ link removed in April 2012 as the page no longer exists, JB ] on the review, the DMA claims that the edited electoral register is an essential tool for cleaning and verifying existing data and an additional layer to ensure data accuracy. It's argument, in short, is that the abolishment of the edited register will make it more likely that junk mail is send to people who have moved house.

A fair argument, you might think. But it isn't. The junk mailer's statement creates the false impression that the edited electoral register is only being used for 'data cleansing'. It avoids any mention of the fact that the list is also used for the creation of junk mail lists.

Interestingly, while doing research for the new 'junk mail facts' section of the Stop Junk Mail website I found that the edited electoral register is in fact the primary source for the creation of mailing lists (see the Direct Marketing Information Service Fact File 2006'). And, the fact file revealed something else as well: no less than 27 per cent of bulk mailers do not know the origin of their mailing lists. Surely the Information Commissioner's review into the way in which personal data is being handled was much needed.

There has been yet another data security blunder. This time a memory stick containing personal details and intelligence on 33,000 serious offenders, dossiers on 10,000 'priority criminals' and the names and dates of birth of all 84,000 prisoners in England and Wales have gone missing.

This latest fiasco could be good news for junk mail haters. You may remember that only six weeks ago, the Information Commissioner called for the abolishment of the edited version of the register. His review into the way in which public and private sector handle personal information was ordered in October 2007, after HM Revenue and Customs had lost the personal details of 25 million people. The Commissioner's report highlighted the practice of local Councils selling the entire edited electoral roll to anyone prepared to pay a small fee. One of the conclusions was that selling the edited register is an unsatisfactory way for local authorities to treat personal information and that this practice sends a particularly poor message to the public that personal information collected for something as vital as participation in the democratic process can be sold to 'anyone for any purpose'.

Often nothing happens after such reports are published… unless the issue remains high on the political agenda. And this latest saga does of course just that. Let's hope the Government will accept the Commissioner's common-sense recommendations.

The Information Commissioner has today published the results of its review into the way both the public and private sector handle our personal details. One of the main recommendations is to abolish the so-called 'edited electoral register'. The review acknowledges that many people are unaware of the fact that local councils sell voters' personal data to anyone prepared to pay a small fee. It states:

"We feel that selling the edited register is an unsatisfactory way for local authorities to treat personal information. It sends a particularly poor message to the public that personal information collected for something as vital as participation in the democratic process can be sold to 'anyone for any purpose'.

"We therefore recommend that the Government removes the provision allowing the sale of the edited electoral register. The edited register would therefore no longer serve any purpose and so should be abolished."

This is of course music to my ears. One of the things Stop Junk Mail advises people to do to stop junk mail, is to opt out of being on the edited version of the electoral register. There's absolutely no advantage in having your personal details on this list. It can be bought by any person or company and may be used for any purpose, including the creation junk mail lists.

It has always been rather difficult for Stop Junk Mail to get this message across, for the reasons stated in the review. Many people don't know that there are two electoral registers and there's much confusion about the consequences of not being on the edited register.

To start with the first, the two electoral registers are the full and edited register. The full register lists everyone who is entitled to vote. Only certain people and organisations can have copies of the full register, and they can only use it for specified purposes. These include electoral purposes, the prevention and detection of crime and checking your identity when you have applied for credit. The edited register omits the names and addresses of people who have opted out of being on that version of the register.

You can opt out of being on the edited register by ticking an opt-out box on your annual electoral registration form. If you are not sure if you have opted out, or if you would like to opt out, you can do so by contacting your local elections office. You can opt out of being on the edited register at any time of the year.

Regarding the consequences of being opted out, unless you like the idea of your personal details being freely available to just about anyone, there's no reason why you would want to be on the edited register. People who tell you that you won't be able to, for instance, get a credit card if your details are not on the edited register are ill-informed. Credit companies are allowed to check your name and address on the full register.

The edited register has always been nothing more than a source of confusion and junk mail. Let's hope the Government will accept the Information Commissioner's recommendations.