I have previously written about the edited version of the electoral register. As regular readers will know, I have pressed for its abolition. The electoral registration form should be solely for the purpose of registering to vote and not being required by law to decide whether to be included in a register made available to commercial bodies, an exercise that in any event unnecessarily burdens electoral registration officers and brings no benefit to local authorities.
When I pursued the issue during the passage of the Political Parties and Elections Bill, the minister promised that the Government was committed to having a public consultation on the implications of removing the register. He said, on 17 June, “It is our intention to conduct a consultation before the Summer Recess in order to build a firmer evidence base about the advantages and disadvantages of the edited register and to consider the way forward on the basis of the responses received.” Shortly before the summer recess, with no consultation announced, I tabled a question asking when it would begin. I received the reply stating that “The consultation will launch as soon as possible and it will run for a minimum of 12 weeks”.
Some readers asked to be informed when the consultation is announced. Well, we are still waiting. It is now October. The Ministry of Justice has a section on its website listing consultations. You can access it here. It has opened five consultations in the period since I received the minister’s answer, but there is still nothing on the edited electoral register.
It is something else to add to my last of things to raise when the House resumes.
Lord Norton,
I am guessing that you will have to whistle for this. Business values this information highly for credit scoring and the like. Tory politicians aren’t going to get anywhere by upsetting huge corporations like Equifax.
It is sad, but the best you can hope for is to make those companies defray the cost for the local authorities. The ‘Database State’ relies on electoral roll information for data cleansing and the like, and I think we are a bit stuck with it.
I guess it is better than going the whole hog with ID Cards, but you are right to be very concerned at these developments.
i had the misfortune of being sent an electoral communication in april from a party i despise. i phoned the party concerned and was told that my details were on the edited version of the electoral register. funny that as i had ticked the relevant box on the electoral registration form in oct 2008 to be excluded from the edited version. the latest form again has the relevant box ticked. looking forward to the mailings in april 2010 (not).
How much does this bring in for the government?
I wouldn’t trust the consultation anyway, governments never ask people what they think unless they are going to get the answer they want.
I think if more people knew about the governments selling of infomation then it would have been abolished long ago. Its likely a method of winning favour with business.
I agree – how about tabling another pq?
Paul: I plan to table one next week. I shall decide, in the light of the response, whether to try to pursue the matter on the Floor of the House.
Let’s hope it’s not a “partial” answer!
Bedd Gelert: I tend to share your view. I agree that it may be a case of taking second best in requiring the edited registers to be sold so that at least the public, through the local authorities, make a profit from the exercise. However, I shall continue to press, on principle, to get rid of the edited version altogether.
pete: It may be that whoever spoke to you was getting their information wrong. The parties are permitted access to the full register and so are almost certain to have been working from that. If you ticked the box to be excluded from the edited version, then you should not be in it. It is possible to check with your local registration officer.
Troika21: As you will have gleaned from my response to Bedd Gelert, the answer is nothing. The registers are produced by local registration officers and what they can charge for them is stipulated in statute. The charge is such that there is no profit. Commercial organisations buy them more or less at cost. It is the organisations, primarily junk mail companies, who get the benefit. The Government are worried that they will lose out economically if the edited register is abolished.
A (thus far unsupported) ePetitioner makes the interesting claim that the system is detrimental to the interests of many migrant settlers as it adversely affects their credit rating:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Electoral-Roll/
stephenpaterson: It is a rather interesting petition as it relates to those who are not eligible to go on the register. It seems to be moving more in the direction of a census! It throws up the problems associated with the use of the electoral register for non-electoral purposes.
pete: as Lord Norton says, political parties are allowed to access the full register (although I’m not convinced even they should be able to). If you only opted out in October 2008, it could be that commercial companies may have an older version of the register. 192.com maintains historical copies of the edited register, going back to before it was possible to opt out. As more and more people opt out, companies may take the risk of using older registers as only a small minority of people will have moved address in the last year or two.
One might assume that, with very few weeks left of real parliamentary business and with it scrutiny, your requests will be kicked into the long grass by the government in the sure knowledge that no one can do very much about it. I suppose it depends what the civil service wants as much of government ticks along in their hands and to their preferences unless a minister intervenes.
You’ll have to try again with a ‘new’ government but based on the opposition front bench’s remarks I’m not sure things will change very much.
“The Government are worried that they will lose out economically if the edited register is abolished.”
To which the obvious answer from Joe Public is likely to be: So what! This has something of the feel of the arguments on wheel clamping. In Scotland, if I remember, the courts banned it yet in E&W the government seemed to go out of its way not to interfere.
Jonathan: Raises an interesting point and perhaps an area where government should act. Perhaps it should be illegal to sell or use for marketing purposes lists more than ‘x’ years old. I’m all in favour of a workable system to opt out of marketing mail but failing that could I at least have my own junk mail not that intended for the previous house owners!
Croft: I rather agree with everything you write, including in response to Jonathan. There is also an issue as to whether such material should be permitted to be put online at all.