Call Credit

Edited electoral register - Proposals for reform

24/11/2009

The Data Sharing Review was launched to examine how information was being used and shared in the UK.  Its recommendations included calls to clarify and simplify the legal framework governing data sharing.  It also presented a case for more robust powers for the Information Commissioner, and consultations are now progressing on custodial penalties for selling personal data and fines of up to £500,000 for breaches of data protection principles.

Recommendation 19 of the Data Sharing Review Report reads,

“The Government should remove 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 would not affect the sale of the full register to political parties or to credit reference agencies.”

The Ministry of Justice has now published its consultation ‘Electoral Registers: Proposed Changes to the Edited Register’ which examines this and other possibilities for reform of how electoral roll data is used and compiled.  The consultation calls for views and evidence on a number of options:

Option 1: Abolish the Edited Register as soon as practicable

• This could be done by amending primary or secondary legislation.  However rapid action would limit the opportunities for users who currently depend on the Edited Electoral Roll for their needs to adapt to changes.

Option 2: Set a timescale or ‘trigger point’ for abolition of the Edited Register.

• Here lead time could be made available to allow businesses, charities and public authorities to make replacement arrangements - assuming an alternative, suitable source of data could be identified.  Or, the Register could be abolished if national opt-out rates exceed a certain level.

Option 3: Abolish the Edited Register as soon as practicable, but extend access to the Full Register for other purposes to be decided in light of the consultation.

• There is already a strong argument that access to the full Electoral Roll should be extended for debt collection and tracing to protect businesses and individuals from people who might abscond in an attempt to lose their debts.

Option 4: Retain the Edited Register, but impose restrictions in legislation on who can purchase it and for what purposes.

• This option would restrict who can obtain Edited Electoral Roll data and for what uses.  This could potentially help protect consumers, by making certain that only organisations with the highest levels of data security and with the interests of UK business and consumers could use this personal data.

Option 5: Replace the current ‘opt out’ provision with an ‘opt in’.

• Current guidance from the Electoral Commission to Electoral Registration Officers is that the ‘opt out’ box should remain blank “in order for the elector... to exercise the choice as to whether or not to opt out each year”.  It is however rumoured that some EROs publish the forms “pre-ticked” which could explain the variations in opt out rates between different areas.

Option 6: Improve guidance for the public about the Edited Register.

• The Data Sharing Review felt public awareness levels about the existence and use of Edited Register data were low. Standardised wording about the Register and the ability to opt out from it could be provided, for example in leaflets, to combat  this. 

Unusually, the consultation does not present an option to maintain the status quo as:

“the Government... considers that some reform of the current arrangements is likely to be desirable...  in light of the concerns highlighted by the Data Sharing Review this consultation does not propose a ‘do nothing’ option.”

The consultation, and an impact assessment which gives additional detail, can be accessed here.

The edited electoral roll is central to almost any population database currently operating in the UK.  Its withdrawal or limitation could have severe repercussions for many businesses.  It is vital that companies which stand to be affected take the opportunity to present their views and evidence to demonstrate how the changes could affect their business.

One of the main users of the Edited Register is the direct marketing industry.  The contribution of the industry to the economy and the efforts made to operate to the highest standards often seem overlooked in public discussion of the Edited Roll, which invariably concentrate on “junk mail”.  Especially, little mention ever seems to be made of the existence of the Mailing Preference Service.  This was set up to support the rights of consumers to opt out of receiving unsolicited direct mail - regardless of which database or list their names were found on.

Equally little mention is made of other reasons why it’s vital that data on names and addresses is available to businesses.  The need to check identity is widely understood. Employers have a duty to perform checks to make sure the people they take on – and sometimes trust with other personal data – are who they say they are, while retailers need to protect against fraud.  Especially with the proliferation of fake identity documents, an independent, objective source of identity confirmation at address is vital.

Every year, people who might well be able to afford to pay their debts try to evade repayment through absconding.  Removing access to the Edited Register without first extending use of the Full Register for this purpose could make it easier for them to do so - making access to credit more expensive for all.  Just as insured motorists must pay extra to cover the costs resulting from uninsured drivers, so hard working people could find themselves having to pay more for credit to cover those who cannot be traced.  Many would find this highly objectionable.

Forward to a colleague

previous page