Here's a transcript of a Radio 5 interview with (former) Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman. The interview is dated 1 November 2011 – the date the mysterious Door-Drop Preference Service was first announced. (I'm still waiting for a response from DEFRA to my latest request for information about the why the opt-out scheme still hasn't been launched.)

The interview is interesting for two reasons. First, it demonstrates how politics and marketing work; when they announce a new initiative they're all dying to talk about how wonderful everything is but when the whole thing collapses they'll do anything to avoid the subject. It's true for the Environment Secretary, DEFRA, the Direct Marketing Association and even charities like Wrap – they're all playing the same nastly game in this saga.

Second, the Environment Secretary clearly wasn't very well information about the deal between her department and the junk mail lobby. I'll point out the most obvious blibs below.

Now for the transcript…

At the moment it's quite complicated – you have to go on at least three different websites to try and restrict the amount of junk mail you get. So we're going to make it much easier for people. We struck a deal with the Direct Marketing Association. From April there will be just one website you can go on, in which you express your preferences, much in the way that people do with the Telephone Preference Service at the moment.

How exactly is it going to work? Will it be quite simple?

Yes, it's very simple. Whereas at the moment, as I say, you have to go on three different websites – quite complicated – this is quite simple. You just log on to the one website and then you can say, very clearly, I want to go on receiving information from charities, for example, because people like that – if they want to do the right thing to help needy people – but I don't want any of the other unsolicited junk mail that I'm getting. So it can be quite tailored to what your preferences are.

Is it going to cost much?

No, this is a voluntary deal with the Direct Marketing Association, so it doesn't cost the tax payer. And what the DMA have said is that actually this is a win-win, because if you could be more targeted with your direct mail it actually saves business money. It's a win for the householder because you don't get the junk mail you don't want and of course the environment wins out because that's less paper wasted.

It's being launched in April 2012 - why is taking so long?

Well, it does take time to put this place, but we have just struck the deal this week and we thought it was a good story to tell because we run-up to Christmas - you know, there are a lot of people who get even more junk mail in the run-up to Christmas; it's estimated the average household gets over 470 items of junk mail – so hopefully this is a piece of good news in the run-up to Christmas, that there is hope in sight; you can reduce the amount of mail that comes through your letter box that you don't want.

You're also trying to make direct mail companies only send things out that are using recycled paper, or using sustainable sources – how are you going to do that?

Well, at the moment direct mail companies have actually made quite a bit of progress – about 80% of direct mail is actually on recycled paper. But as part of this deal we've struck they've agreed to improve even on that. When you consider that we're using 300,000 tonnes of paper a year for this unsolicited junk mail, you can appreciate that actually using more recycled paper and overall reducing the volume is going to be good for the environment.

And companies that don't comply with this – what will happen, will they get fined?

Yes, there are some sanctions. So, eh, the Direct Mail Association's members can be struck off if they don't, eh, eh, adhere to deal that's been struck – and they would loose out then on significant benefits of being a member of that Association; the discounts that they get through that. If the contravention is serious and it's about advertising standards, those could be referred to the Advertising Standards Agency. And if there's a financial aspect to this breach of the agreement, then actually that can be referred to the Office of Fair Trading - and that does carry hefty financial penalties.

A couple of blips…

As said, the Environment Secretary didn't really know what the agreement with the industry was all about:

At the moment […] you have to go on at least three different websites to try and restrict the amount of junk mail you get.

This is false. One of the reasons why DEFRA wanted the Door-Drop Preference Service was because the two existing opt-out schemes for unaddressed mail don't have a website. To this date they're working with paper opt-out forms, which makes opting out a rather lenghty and discouraging process.

From April there will be just one website you can go on[…]

This is false. She's thinking that new website will cover the two existing opt-out schemes for unaddressed mail as well as the Mailing Preference Service. The possibility to merge all opt-out schemes for unsolicited mail was firmly rejected by the Direct Marketing Association in June 2011 and, as far as I know, never discussed again. In any case, junk mail haters will still need to use two separate websites.

You just log on to the one website and then you can say, very clearly, I want to go on receiving information from charities, for example, [hellip;] but I don't any of the other unsolicited junk mail that I'm getting. So it can be quite tailored to what your preferences are.

This is probably false. To the best of my knowledge, the Door-Drop Preference Service would stop all unaddressed mail distributed by the Royal Mail and companies that are members of the Direct Marketing Association (with the exception of election communications and important Government leaflets). The existing opt-out schemes for unaddressed mail are all-or-nothing schemes and the draft website states that people who opt out will miss out on everything from free samples and discount vouchers to information on road closures and bin collections (the usual scare tactics). That said, the agreement between DEFRA and the junk mail industry does state that the opt-out scheme should be designed to ensure that it does not unduly restrict the activities of local communities, charities and local small businesses (e.g. a blanket ban on anything through the letterbox).

[…]about 80% of direct mail is actually on recycled paper[…]

This is false. The agreement signed by the Environment Secretary herself doesn't say anything about using recycled paper. It does talk about increasing the volume of junk mail produced to the industry's PAS 2020 standard – the aim was to double the volume (to 40%) by the end of 2014. It's worth noting that the PAS 2020 standard doesn't require the use of 100% recycled paper – as long as a piece of junk mail contains some recycled fibres the recycled paper requirement is satisfied.

[…]they would loose out then on significant benefits of being a member of that Association; the discounts that they get through that[…]

This is false. For junk mailers, there are certainly benefits of being a member of a junk mail association – but it ain't a groupon club!

And if there's a financial aspect to this breach of the agreement, then actually that can be referred to the Office of Fair Trading - and that does carry hefty financial penalties[…]

This is true. However, it's difficult to see how there can possibly be a financial aspect to a breach of the agreement – delivering unsolicited leaflets to households that are opted out wasn't something the Office of Fair Trading would have been interested in. (And in any case, they've been abolished).