Examination of witnesses (Questions 442
- 459)
TUESDAY 31 MARCH 1998
MS D WHITWORTH,
MS M WINFIELD,
MR B MIDDLETON
AND MS
O KLEVAN
Chairman
442. Thank you very much for coming. As
you are two separate bodies I am going to ask you to introduce
yourselves in an order which you will have to determine between
yourselves and also I am going to ask you whether you have an
opening statement which you want to read out. I do not know how
you are going to decide the order of that either but whichever
of you feels more assertive and proactive this morning can take
the lead in this process of introductions and if you both have
opening statements who is going to go first.
(Mr Middleton) I am Benet Middleton, Head of Policy
Research at Consumers' Association and Olivia Klevan, Public Affairs
Officer at Consumers' Association. We should like to read out
a brief statement but I will first of all hand over to the National
Consumer Council to introduce themselves.
(Ms Whitworth) I am Diana Whitworth, Head of Public
Affairs at the National Consumer Council and this is Marlene Winfield
who is our Senior Policy and Development Officer who specialises
in the area of freedom of information. I also have a statement.
(Mr Middleton) We will keep ours very brief but
I thought it would be helpful if we just described who we are
and what our involvement is in this issue to give you the background
to the questions when we answer them. Consumers' Association is
an independent consumers' association with around 700,000 members.
We are the second largest consumer organisation in the world.
We publish Which magazine and a number of other consumer
magazines. We are funded entirely from the sale of magazines,
books and other services to our members. We have had a very long
involvement in the issue of freedom of information which actually
dates back to a Which editorial in 1975 where we called
for a law along the lines of the American Bill. Since then we
have been one of the main funders of the freedom of information
campaign and indeed their director is a CA member of staff technically
speaking although he has a completely free run as that goes. We
very much welcome and support the White Paper which will not come
as a surprise, given our long involvement in the issue, although
there are a couple of areas where we are specifically interested
in seeing an extension or seeing the paper go further. One of
them is that we should like to see it cover some of the self-regulatory
bodies which it is not clear it will cover at the moment. The
other is in the area of active disclosure where we think there
is a need to go beyond the requirements of the legislation although
we realise that is not actually a legislative approach which can
be taken in that area.
(Ms Whitworth) I should like to start by saying
how delighted the National Consumer Council is that the Government
is going to legislate for freedom of information. We very much
welcome the opportunity to give evidence to your Committee here
today. NCC is a publicly funded consumer body, funded by the Department
of Trade and Industry. We were set up by a Labour administration
in 1975. One of our jobs is to ensure that those making decisions
have an authoritative view of the consumer interest before them
and we have a special remit to look after the disadvantaged consumer.
Our job in presenting decision makers such as yourselves with
an authoritative view of the consumer interest depends on thorough
research, analysis and policy making. To do this we need access
to information and especially official information. It is not
surprising that back in 1982 we published Consuming Secrets
and if the Committee do not have a copy of the report we should
be very happy to give you a copy. The foreword to the book was
written by Harold Evans. He wrote then that "the British
have learnt to be suspicious of young men bearing theodolites
and surveying poles. It is so very often the first sign that somebody
somewhere is planning a nasty surprise; the demolition of half
the High Street or the construction of a motorway across the common.
Why should we tolerate secrecy over figures purporting to justify
road widening, over food additives ..." He then goes on to
give a long list but I thought that if he were writing this foreword
today he would include in that list things like official information
on the safety of medicines, applications for use of genetically
modified materials, the links between public utilities, price
formula and the actual charges they make and school governing
bodies' decisions about contracting out cleaning and catering
services. He goes on to ask whether it does not remain absurd
and demeaning that on some of these subjects we can learn more
about our affairs in Washington than we can in London because
British firms trading with the United States have to comply with
the American regulations. He finishes by saying that there is
a further unanswerable argument for more openness which goes beyond
mere efficiency. Secrecy strikes at the roots of democratic society.
It produces fear instead of trust, it excites hostility instead
of cooperation, it repels the idea of tolerance for authorities
coping with complex problems, it produces conflict instead of
cohesion. Those words written in 1982 have been particularly appropriate
during the last few years where we have actually seen many of
the problems associated with official secrecy in the areas of
food and public utilities.
443. The particular reason and relevance
of having both of your two bodies here today is because you represent
the consumer. It is fair to say that the international experience
of freedom of information legislation is that it is to some extent
a toy of the specialists, the investigative journalists, the MPs,
researchers, lobbyists and so on and ordinary consumers do not
always seem to take as much advantage of it as they might. It
is a crying shame when that does happen. As we are starting out
afresh now with the White Paper which may lead to legislation
next year, your advice on how to make sure that the ordinary person
on the Clapham omnibus or wherever is equally as able as specialists
to make use of it is a very important consideration. Has either
of your two bodies given thought as to how the ordinary consumer
can make use of freedom of information as well as the academics
and the politicians and the investigative journalists?
(Ms Winfield) In our response to the White Paper
we certainly made the point that there is a need for some sort
of central body to produce good guidance for consumers about the
workings of the Act. There needs to be a strategy for public information
and public education that may involve calling in from perhaps
the private sector experts at getting information out to the public.
We need probably to have fresh approaches to this, approaches
which we may not have adopted before because this is a very wide
area of interest, it affects everyone in the country potentially
and therefore everyone in the country should know that something
has changed, know what it is and know how it affects them and
how they can have access. That is the first thing: good public
information, good guidance materials.
444. Where would that publicity appear?
One assumes the faded notice in the corner of the public library
in every public library in the country will occur but how do you
make it a bit more proactive than the faded notice in the public
library?
(Ms Winfield) We have to look beyond what we normally
do in the public sector to publicise things. We need to be very
imaginative and creative. We should make sure that story lines
in popular soap operas and serials have something about public
information.
Mr Hancock
445. Who do you think should do that?
(Ms Winfield) This is something we discussed before
this meeting. An information strategy needs to be created. There
are two possibilities. There is the Cabinet Office Freedom of
Information Unit and there is the Information Commissioner, both
will have an interest in ensuring that there is good public awareness.
It strikes me this might be something which is suitable for the
Cabinet Office FOI unit but I stress again that it involves a
fresh approach; reaching people where they are, video shops, high
streets.
(Mr Middleton) This is very much about the issue
of active disclosure and how you can go beyond the requirements
of the White Paper and how you can actually start trying to involve
consumers in the decision-making process. Various attempts are
already going on to do that. For example, when the ITC had their
bids for the digital terrestrial television remaining spectrum
they advertised on the television for consultation responses,
people like the contaminants in food working party already press
release some of their work. It is a question of looking at those
sorts of initiatives, trying to identify where they are really
needed and then making more of those and trying to link them directly
to people's experience and needs.
Chairman
446. May I ask you whether we are in danger
of having what you might call an overcrowded field of ombudspersons
in the sense that we will have an Information Commissioner, as
well as a Data Protection Registrar, as well as an Ombudsman,
as well as a Local Government Ombudsman, a Health Service Ombudsman
and so on? Do you think adding an Information Commissioner to
this field but without unifying either the gateways, the charging
systems, where to find them, what office they occupy and so on,
is possibly going to lead to confusion amongst consumers as to
how to exercise their rights? Is there not a case for looking
at trying to unify so you do have one publicity machine belting
out the message that if you want redress, whether it is denial
of information or maladministration or maladministration in the
Health Service or local government there is a single point, you
know the charging system, you know the gateway, the type of rights
you have? Do you see this as an area where there is the possibility
of consumers getting confused by an additional commissioner with
a quite separate legal structure to the existing ombudspersons
that we have at the moment?
(Ms Winfield) One can make similar observations
about the Financial Services Ombudsman. Even before the financial
services authority was being created the five Ombudsmen in financial
services themselves were recognising that there was a problem,
that it was very confusing and they were trying to create one
way in so that you would have an entry point which was common
to all.
447. A clearing house, port of call, postman,
whatever you want to call it.
(Ms Winfield) Yes. In this field that is certainly
a possibility but then how wide does it go? If you concentrated
on information, one way in for information, that might be less
confusing for the public than trying to bring in the Local Government
Ombudsman as well. The Local Government Ombudsman has been around
for quite a long time. People are fairly familiar with what the
Local Government Ombudsman does. If you then amalgamate them with
the information function, I do not know whether that would be
less confusing but there is certainly a strong argument for having
one way in for the Data Protection Registrar and the Information
Commissioner. There is also quite a bit of harmonisation of the
procedures of the various Ombudsmen which can be done. We have
produced a guide which I am going to leave with you on 27 different
Ombudsmen schemes. There are quite a lot of similarities in their
procedures but they all have different names and without changing
much of the way they actually work there are quite a lot of things
which can be done to make them all sound more similar, to reflect
the actual similarity which would be less confusing to the consumer.
Mr Bradley
448. It is particularly appropriate we have
the consumers' associations here today because the question I
always ask witnesses and indeed myself about freedom of information
is that in theory it is fine and it is extremely welcome that
we should have this legislation as it will become but what difference
is it going to make to the man and the woman in the street? Clearly
education is going to be important so that people understand their
rights and how to use them but how will it actually help improve,
if that is what it does, men and women's lives and rights and
choices?
(Ms Klevan) From the Consumers' Association's
point of view, the legislation is so important for two reasons:
it will hopefully improve the decision-making process and also
allow consumers to make informed decisions. Our examples of that
would be, say, the BSE crisis. We would not say that crisis could
necessarily have been averted but certainly people could have
been allowed to have the information to make decisions about whether
or not they wanted to eat a certain kind of meat. There was no
way of us knowing whether competing interests between industry
and the consumer were being balanced because that information
was kept from consumer bodies and consumers themselves individually.
Another example is that Consumers' Association have spent a long
time trying to get information about the marketing of medicines,
information about how licences are granted or even revoked. We
believe that hopefully the new freedom of information legislation
will mean that section 118, for example, of the Medicines Act
can be repealed and information made available so that we can
see how decisions are being made.
449. Do you think that pharmaceutical companies
will cease to behave in the way that they do now if there is the
kind of disclosure that you are anticipating, or is it simply
that they will carry on doing what they are doing but consumers
will have a greater range of information on which to base their
judgements?
(Ms Klevan) It may be that the implementation
of the legislation will have an effect on the practices of pharmaceutical
companies, however I would not wish to comment on particular companies.
Rather, what is crucial is that the consumer has the knowledge
to decide for themselves whether they want to take a particular
drug. It is giving them the power to make the informed decisions
which is important.
450. It will not necessarily make business
more ethical, or might it?
(Ms Klevan) From Consumers' Association that is
not a point on which we would want to say yes or no. I certainly
think that it will make the process a lot more transparent and
from the American experience freedom of information legislation
has not held back the pharmaceutical industry.
Mr Shepherd
451. The route into this information is
what Government holds on it, the Department of Health consultative
committees or whatever it is. That is the route in. It is not
that this was mandated through the White Paper or perhaps subsequent
legislation in statutory provision, that is the pharmaceutical
company is covered. It is your route through the Government and
therefore this information becomes available and therefore very
important to you is the change in the law in respect of the Drugs
Act, that is the key to this.
(Ms Klevan) Yes.
452. Which is an actual bar on receipt of
information.
(Ms Klevan) Yes.
Mr Bradley
453. You said twice that providing a greater
range of information will help consumers make informed choices
and in one context you said as to what they eat or not. Does that
mean you have a view on the recent banning of beef on the bone?
The promoters of the ban say this was a decision taken in the
public interest because they have the information which members
of the public do not have and could not be expected to understand.
The opponents say that this was an infringement of people's freedoms
to make a choice as to whether they smoke or do not smoke, whether
they eat beef on the bone or not. Do you think that if we have
freedom of information legislation those choices by Government
and by consumers alike will be made easier or more complicated
and more difficult?
(Mr Middleton) We actually supported the ban on
beef on the bone along with the Meat and Livestock Commission
who interestingly also supported it on the day. The issue which
was raised there was this thing about the degree to which the
general public are able to understand and engage in the debates
which are going on. There was a very complicated discussion about
the level of risk involved in beef on the bone which, because
of the way information is released and the way that information
was presented, was sensationalised by the press. The public reaction
was not what you could call an informed reaction. Part of what
the Freedom of Information Act hopefully will do is through the
use of active disclosure we can overcome those sorts of problems
and have a much more reasoned approach and response to those sorts
of issues.
Mr Shepherd
454. In the absence of that information
yourselves how could the Consumers' Association support the ban?
(Mr Middleton) We took the line that it would
do a number of things. There was an unknown level of risk so there
was an essential point that it was unclear what the level of risk
was. In the past we supported the removal of infected material
from the food chain and therefore it was logical for us to support
another call for further removal of infected material from the
food chain. The other point to stress is that there was a lot
of talk of the level of a one in six million risk of becoming
infected with the new variant CJD as a result of that, which was
a fairly meaningless figure because no-one actually knew what
the level of risk was. However, that debate could not be had in
any meaningful way because of the way the information was being
presented.
Mr Bradley
455. It is curious, is it not, how every
discussion eventually gets round to BSE? May I wrest it back to
freedom of information? Do you think that there may be disadvantages
in freedom of information? The Chairman was referring to an overload
of information which frankly as often as not can cloud issues
as well as clarify them. Is that the concern you have or do you
think that the advantages of disclosure and freedom of information
vastly outweigh that? Or do we need to have controls and cautions
on these issues?
(Ms Whitworth) Overload of information is not
an argument for not putting information in the public arena. How
you present information to individual members of the public is
an important issue. All Government departments and public bodies
should do that properly and present it carefully. We have drawn
a distinction already between academics and individual members
of the public and perhaps academic bodies or bodies such as ourselves
which carry out work on behalf of consumers are better able to
deal with more complex information but individuals need access
to clear information and that is why the guidance which my colleague
was talking about is very important. It is important that there
is guidance to government departments about how to present information
to the public and to present it clearly.
456. How about the advantages to the consumer?
We are not talking so much about rights now as consumables or
indeed services for that matter. You mentioned a presumption to
disclose or a more active culture of disclosure. What if a citizen
goes to a health authority and says he wants to register with
a local doctor but he would like some information as to how good,
by measurable criteria, the various practices in his area are?
Similarly, an issue we were talking about before you came in,
if somebody goes to the local authority and says they are going
to build an extension on to their home and they want to know who
the best builders are, are we not getting potentially into dangerous
territory? Will those possibilities exist after legislation and
is that not perhaps dangerous territory?
(Mr Middleton) On both of those examples I am
not sure that information is available in any form or collected
in any form. With the GMC, who do carry out investigations into
doctors, we very much push for openness in relation to that and
that that information should be available. On the builders I am
afraid I have no knowledge.
(Ms Whitworth) We have done quite a lot of work
on cowboy builders and one of the areas where we would have been
encouraging people, and I am not sure it is a problem under the
Freedom of Information Act, is actually about communications between
different bits of different departments. You have different departments
in local authorities who have information about the performance
of local builders and either because they use them themselves
or because there is information about outstanding complaints and
that sort of thing, we do not see why that sort of information
should not be put in the public arena—I am not aware that
this is covered by official secrecy—and we are actually
working at the moment to encourage local authorities to do that.
457. There is a difference, is there not,
between factual objective data about prosecutions or action which
a local authority or another agency has had to take to fulfil
its functions and value judgements? That is the difficulty.
(Ms Whitworth) We think the Office of Fair Trading
has proposals to try to develop ways of improving information
to consumers about builders which is going down a different route.
May I say something about access to information for people locally?
I am a governor of a school, for example. I mentioned the business
in my opening remarks about decisions which are made about employing
catering companies and contracting out. I was absolutely astonished
as a parent governor to discover that this whole decision-making
process and our final decision is shrouded in secrecy and is confidential.
It seems to me that the parents of the school and prospective
parents of the school should know about how the governing body
is making decisions and should know that it is making decisions
in the best interests. That is a very simple, basic piece of information
which they ought to be able to look for, the probity of the financial
management of the school. I would expect that a Freedom of Information
Act would sweep away that sort of secrecy. I imagine there are
several other areas where that sort of rather minor but important
secrecy is a problem.
458. Talking about catering, what is the
current procedure when a restaurant for example has failed an
inspection by a local authority? Clearly it is closed down until
it can conform to standards expected. Would you suggest that it
should be displaying prominently alongside its menu when it re-opens
the fact that it has been the subject of that inspection for the
benefit of the public? Is that information which they ought to
have or is that prejudicial to the interests of a commercial operation?
(Ms Whitworth) If the information were still relevant,
there is no reason why that information should not be made available.
If it is not relevant——
459. It obviously would not be relevant
if a restaurant had recovered the situation.
(Ms Whitworth) Exactly.
|
