There are two electoral registers. 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've applied for credit.

The Edited Register omits the names and addresses of people who have asked for them to be excluded from that version of the register. It is this version of the register that is used by bulk mailers to create junk mail lists.

The Edited Register is a relatively recent invention and many people are unaware of its existence. At present, only 40% of voters are opted out of being on the edited version of the Electoral Register. That this figure is not higher is, I think it's safe to say, mainly because many don't know exactly what the opt-out is all about.

The electoral register has always been a public document. Having a public electoral register is seen as a safeguard against potential abuse. Members of the public and political parties can check if all eligible people who have applied to appear on the register have been included; if details are accurate; and if the register doesn't contain the names of people ineligible to vote.

What wasn't envisaged when the electoral register was first introduced was that it would be widely used for commercial purposes. Until 2002, anyone could buy the complete electoral roll for a nominal fee (local councils are by law not allowed to make a profit from selling voter's personal details) and use it for whatever purpose - no questions asked.

The Robertson Case

The Edited Register was introduced after a High Court ruling in November 2001 (known as the 'Robertson Case'). The case was brought to court by a member of the public (Mr Robertson) who objected to the use of electoral data for direct marketing purposes. The court ruled that it's unlawful to sell copies of the Electoral Register to private businesses without giving people the choice not to have their information used in this way. Not doing so was considered inconsistent with the Data Protection Act 1998.

Instead of simply banning the use of electoral data for commercial purposes the Government of the day decided to set up a second, 'edited' version of the electoral roll. The Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 have been challenged in court twice (in both cases by the above-mentioned Mr Robertson) but the new law was judged to be compliant with data protection and human rights legislation.

A happy ending?

In July 2008, the then Information Commissioner recommended the abolishment of the Edited Register. The Data Sharing Review, which was ordered by Government in October 2007 after HM Revenue and Customs had lost the personal details of 25 million people, concluded that “selling the Edited Register is an unsatisfactory way for local authorities to treat person 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'.”

The recommendation was quickly endorsed by the Local Government Association. According to the representative of Council in England 98% of election officers in Councils around England agreed that Government should abolish the register. They said they didn't want “to be part of the process that generates money for junk mail companies in this way” and that “selling the electoral roll undermines democracy, dissuades people from voting and gives people the impression that their council is profiting from selling their personal information.”

In November 2008, Government announced it would hold a public consultation on the Information Commissioner's recommendation. It took exactly a year before the consultation actually started; from 24 November 2009 until 23 February 2010 you had the chance to have your say about the future of the Edited Register. Government was due to respond to the consultation by 18 May 2010 but as yet no response has been made public.

The consultation

The consultation document states that Government is sympathetic to the argument that data collected for electoral purposes should only be used for electoral purposes. However, it also wants to consider the impact abolishing the register would have on the economy and wider society. The document gives six policy option. The first three option would see the Edited Register abolished in some way or other, the latter three would retain it. 'Doing nothing' is not an option:

1. Abolish the Edited Register as soon as practicable.
2. Set a timescale or 'trigger point' for abolition of the Edited Register.
3. Abolish the Edited Register as soon as practicable, but extend access to the Full Register for other purposes to be decided in the light of the consultation.
4. Retain the Edited Register, but impose restrictions in legislation on who can purchase it and for what purposes.
5. Replace the current 'opt out' provision with an 'opt in'.
6. Improve guidance for the public about the Edited Register.

Whether or not local Councils will be banned from selling voters' personal details remains to be seen. More than three years have passed since the abolition was first recommended by the Information Commissioner. If you haven't opted out, it's wise to do so.

• Read the Information Commissioner's report on data sharing (PDF, 471Kb)
• Read the consultation document on the ICO's recommendation