Survey shows 'overwhelming support' for changes to electoral register » Local Government » 24dash.com

A new survey published today shows overwhelming support for a change in the law to ban junk mail companies from gaining access to voters’ details through the electoral register.

The survey, carried out by the Local Government Association and the Association of Electoral Administrators, shows that well over nine in ten elections officers in councils around the country think that the Government should change the law to stop direct marketing companies gaining access to the electoral register.

At the moment, by law councils have to comply with requests when they are made.

The survey also reveals that almost nine in ten believe that the practice of selling the electoral roll discourages people from registering to vote.

The survey of electoral officers shows that:

• 98% would like to see a change in the law to abolish the edited register that councils have to sell to direct marketing companies.
• 88% believe that the current system deters people from voting.

On average councils raise around £1,900 from selling the register a year, although this is unlikely to cover the cost of administering registers and dealing with requests.

The Government changed the law in 2002 to give direct marketing companies the right to buy an edited version of the electoral register from councils.

Residents can remove their name from the list that is sold on by ticking a box on the voter registration form that is posted out every year.

In July, the Information Commissioner recommended that the Government change the law to stop the sale of the electoral roll.

Councillor Richard Kemp, 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.”

John Turner, Chief Executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators said: “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.”

The Direct Marketing Association, meanwhile, has released the following response to the Local Government Association/Association of Electoral Administrators press release:

1. The LGA/AEA press release declares: “A new survey published today shows overwhelming support for a change in the law to ban junk mail companies from gaining access to voters’ details through the electoral register”.  It is only in para. 2 that it becomes clear that this “overwhelming support” is that of the local government officers themselves.

2. There are a number of factual inaccuracies in the statement: “The Government changed the law in 2002 to give direct marketing companies the right to buy an edited version of the electoral register from councils” – anyone can buy the edited version, not just direct marketing companies.  And before 2002, anyone could buy the full version.  Therefore, the change of law in 2002 was making the law more, not less restrictive.  
 
“In July, the Information Commissioner recommended that the Government change the law to stop the sale of the electoral roll” –  Not strictly accurate.  It is one recommendation within the Walport Report which is a joint report by Dr. Mark Walport of the Wellcome Trust and the Information Commissioner.  The direct marketing industry is in regular contact with the Information Commissioner’s Office and, to the best of our knowledge, at no time has Richard Thomas, or his staff, expressed any view on the edited register arrangements.  

“A change in the law would cut down on the junk mail that can infuriate homeowners”  No, it wouldn’t.  If a householder does not wish to receive direct mail, opting out of the edited register is not the way to achieve this. The Mailing Preference Service (MPS) exists as a consumer mechanism whereby anyone can register to say that they do not want to receive direct mail.  The MPS has been going for 20+ years, will stop around 95% of unsolicited direct mail, and has a high recognition factor amongst the general public. 

Principle 4 of the Data Protection Act 1998 states that “Personal information must be accurate and up-to-date.”  Marketers therefore have a legal responsibility to ensure that they comply with data protection law and meet consumer expectations. The edited electoral register, as a continually updated nationwide register of the whole of the UK population, is an essential tool for cleaning and verifying existing data and making sure that it is accurate and up to date – it is not primarily used to gather names for mailing. 

Removing access to the edited register for validation and verification purposes, therefore, could well result in more misdirected mail, causing far greater infuriation to homeowners. 

3. The LGA/AEA seem to be overlooking the fact that an average of 40% of householders have worked out that they can opt out of the edited register. 

4. Electoral Registration Officers have, in many instances, not been strictly complying with the Representation of the People (Form of Canvass) Regulations 2004, in that it is common practice for the opt-out box for the edited register to be pre-ticked for voters (usually, if they have opted-out in the past but, in some instances, for everyone). 

However, the prescribed wording for the Form of Canvass and Form of Words about the two versions of the Register, as set out in Part I of the Schedule to the Regulations is very clear on the procedure to be followed:  

"Please put a tick in Part 6 against anyone who wishes their name and address to be excluded from the edited register.  Each elector must choose each year whether they want their details to be excluded from the edited register.  You must therefore ask each of them their preference before completing this form.  You must decide whether to tick the box even if you ticked it on a previous canvass form."

The Electoral Commission also makes the situation very clear in its own guidance in Circular EC30/04, issued on 20th July 2004:

"28. Having considered the legal position, it remains the Commission's view that to pre-print annual canvass forms with the elector's previous choice by means of a tick in the opt-out box would be a significant departure from the prescribed form. We recognise that some EROs have taken a different view and intend pre-printing the tick and that for some administrators there are significant practical implications driving that decision.

29.  However, in our view a safer interpretation is that law requires the elector to exercise a fresh choice each year.  On that basis, the opt-out box should remain blank for the elector, of the householder on their behalf, in returning the form to make such a choice."

Where councils have pre-ticked opt-out boxes, they do not usually make it clear that electors can change their mind and opt back in to the edited register if they wish. 

5.  “The survey also reveals that almost nine in ten believe that the practice of selling the electoral roll discourages people from registering to vote”

Where is the evidence to support this statement of belief?  Has any research or polling been done at all to back up this assertion?  There may be many reasons why people choose not to register: 

Lack of interest in or disaffection with the political process;

Some wish to avoid being on any public record of addresses for many reasons, such as fear for personal safety or avoidance of creditors or calls for jury service, or to avoid attention by public authorities, e.g. inland revenue, council tax, benefits, police, etc.

People change addresses and may not remember to register or realise that there is a rolling register (in some urban areas, the turnover rate can be 20% or more). 

And, in any case, there is a historical legacy of non-registration from the time of the poll tax. 

6.  The survey says that the fees raised by selling the register are “unlikely to cover the cost of administering registers and dealing with requests”.  The fee is fixed at £20 for online form + £1.50 for each 1000 entries or £10 for printed data + £5 for each 1000 entries.  If this is not sufficient to cover the administrative costs, perhaps councils should ask the government to increase the fee so that it does. 

7.  The Local Government Association and the Association of Electoral Administrators give the game away themselves in the final sentence of their press release:

“Keeping two separate electoral rolls is fiddly, costly and frankly a pain in the backside for councils”.