±±¾©Èü³µpk10

MPs spent almost five hours debating Clause 9 of the Representation

of the People Bill, which would restrict sale of the Electoral Register

to commercial firms.

The length of the well-informed debate at least shows that the direct

marketing and financial services industries’ lobbying has borne some

fruit, even though the bill now goes to the House of Lords with few

amendments.

Let us recall how this all arose. The government’s problem stems from

the very low turnout in general, local and European elections in the

past few years. In January 1998 the Home Office created a working party

on electoral procedures, ’which will lead to more open and fairer

electoral procedures, and which will command the trust of the electorate

and contribute to democratic re-newal in the United Kingdom.’

There was nothing to suggest the commercial sale of the register fell

within such terms, but on July 31 1998 the Home Secretary wrote to a

selection of organisations seeking their views - by September 1 - on the

effect of withdrawing the register from commercial use. One of the

claims made was that ’some people may even be reluctant to register to

vote’ because of the commercial availability of the register - a claim

never substantiated and, in our view, incapable of substantiation.

The DMA (UK) made a submission to the Home Office in 1998 and suggested

solutions to the problem. The implications for industry and commerce

were so far-reaching that we co-ordinated our response with other trade

bodies, including the CBI, British Bankers’ Association, Advertising

Association and ISBA. But we were all refused a personal meeting with

the working party and our suggestion that at least one businessman

should participate in the working party was turned down.

Summary recommendations

When the draft summary recommendations were released on July 13 1999,

our fears were confirmed. Electors should be able to opt out of the

version of the register made available to businesses by ticking a box on

the registration form itself.

The electoral register has unique characteristics as a data source:

national spread, annual update, reliable collection method, ability to

identify recent moves and those reaching maturity, and allowing deaths

and disappearances to be inferred.

One of the key direct marketing uses is database validation/correction

and the register is also vital for assessment of credit

applications.

Potential consequences of an elector’s omission from the commercially

available register include increased risk of social exclusion among the

young and less well-off; delays in granting credit and mortgages; poorly

targeted, irrelevant, incorrectly addressed direct mail, raising the

risk of inappropriate offers to minors; and restraint on growth of

electronic commerce because of lack of data to verify dispatch

addresses.

We estimated, for direct marketing alone, financial detriment of about

pounds 500m a year.

After a meeting with the Home Office last November, we submitted further

counter-proposals:

- No opt-out boxes on the form, but a clear statement on the lines of:

’Before returning this form, please make sure that you read the enclosed

leaflet about the non-electoral uses the information you have given may

be put to.’

-A leaflet describing, in consumer-friendly terms, all the non-electoral

uses and how such usage benefits consumers/electors. It would summarise

rights under data protection legislation. The industry would produce the

leaflet at its expense. It would tell electors how to opt out of the

uses they did not want their data put to. In our view, this should be

limited to marketing, ie the use of data as the source of a mailing

list.

-Creation of a trusted third party to collate both a full version of the

electoral register and an expurgated version, omitting details of

electors who had opted out of marketing.

-Tight control over use by means of the ER Commercial Use licence, which

we have prepared and made available to the Home Office, and by

individual contracts between the trusted third party and licensees.

The government, however, has now said that the register will be made

available only for electoral purposes, for law enforcement and crime

prevention and in connection with applications for credit. But in the

report stage debate, he said: ’We do have a settled view (on the direct

marketing industry), but not a dogmatic view, about how we shall

proceed ... the DMA and the CBI have sent us papers, and we shall

continue to consider any representations that they are prepared to

make.’

The bill has now gone to the Lords and we are planning a concerted

lobby.

We are delighted the government has moved on credit applications and see

no reason why they should not move on database

validation/correction.

The public will be confused if they opt out of commercial use and expect

a dramatic reduction in the volume of direct mail they receive. This, as

we have constantly emphasised, is far from likely, and the government

will be blamed.