The committee's report, Individual Electoral Registration and Electoral Administration, acknowledges that direct marketing agencies and people-finding websites such as 192.com benefit from the availability of the register. However, it concludes that whatever benefit it might bring, we cannot justify the sale to commercial organisations of personal details gathered by the Government for electoral purposes. (Page 15, paragraph 43).

For electoral purposes only (and perhaps national security)

The committee has by and large endorsed the evidence it received from the Association of Electoral Administrators and the Electoral Commission. The former told the committee it believes the electoral register should be used purely for electoral purposes, with the only possible exception being purposes relating to national security.

That the Association of Electoral Administrators has strong views on the issue is no secret. In 2008, shortly after the then Information Commissioner recommended abolishing the edited register, it organised a survey which showed that 98% of electoral administrators agree local councils should not be required to sell an edited version of the electoral register. In its response to a public consultation on the Information Commissioner's recommendation it argued that the use of the register for non-electoral purposes discourages people from registering to vote.

In its evidence to the committee the association added that, should Government decide to retain the edited register, the current opt out policy would need to go; only people who opt in should be included on the register. In addition, the consequences of opting in would need to be clearly explained on all registration forms and other election materials, and the fees local authorities charge for providing the data should be reviewed to more accurately reflect the cost of producing the electoral register.

Responding to this suggestion the committee notes in its report that retaining the register and introducing an opt in system might well make the edited register too incomplete to be of much use. In other words, the committee believes the number of people who would opt in would be negligible and that it is therefore not a viable alternative for abolishing the edited register.

Personal data

The Electoral Commission's evidence was equally unambiguous. It wholeheartedly agrees the edited register should be scrapped:

We again call on the Government, in the strongest possible terms, to repeal provisions which allow for the commercial sale of the edited register. We firmly believe that the electoral register should not be used for commercial gain and that an individual's data, given for civic purposes, should not be sold to companies wishing to profit from it.

The Electoral Commission stated it is concerned the existence of the edited register may discourage people from registering to vote and that there is much confusion about the register. However, it also suggested that access to the full register should be extended to academics: At present, academics are unable to access the register for research purposes. A scheme is currently in place to allow academics access to census data and an equivalent could be put in place for registration data.

Both the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators argued that the change from household to individual voter registration makes abolishing the edited register all the more important. Under the new system people registering to vote will probably have to provide their date of birth and National Insurance number. Although this data would not appear on the electoral register abolishing the edited version of the register would provide additional reassurance to people and reduce their concerns about what may happen to their personal data.

The committee's report will now be considered by the Government. A response is not expected before the new year.

Links

• Individual Electoral Registration and Electoral Administration (parliament.uk)