back to menuA new body, the National Consumer Federation, so a new name for a one day conference, a `Consumer Assembly'. Whether this will actually become an annual event remains to be seen, but, judging by the success of the one held on June 30, this seems likely
The day was divided into three sessions, Public Transport, Food Safety and Consumer Representation and the National Consumer Federation.
We did briefly touch on trams as a means of transport, but buses and, particularly, trains were the main targets for discussion. Gradually a long list of wants, needs and priorities emerged.
Safety on the railways had a comparatively low priority for those present compared to punctuality, clarity of information and a number of other points. This despite the several serious rail crashes in the last few years. This audience anyway still has confidence that the railways are a very safe way to travel, despite the attention the media gives to Signals Passed At Danger (SPADS) and other instances were safety has been compromised.
We were fortunate to have Rufus Barnes, the Director of the London Transport Users' Committee (LTUC), in the audience. He was able to tell us in many instances what was actually happening; much more satisfactory than talking about what we thought was happening. He told us that three train operators have, so far, been awarded new franchises. One of the conditions of these is that customer consultation should be improved. South West Trains has a new Passenger Panel chaired by Sir Alan Greengrass. In other respects passenger interests are looked after, but, in a negative sort of way. Mr. Barnes related the fact that his season ticket for travelling into London had been reduced in price twice, firstly by 5%, then by 7%; these reductions were imposed by the Rail Regulator because of poor performance by the train operator. Would commuters have preferred a better service rather than a price reduction?.
People present suggested that there was a danger that the media attention and indirect Government direction to Railtrack to ensure absolute safety (which is impossible anyway) was causing neglect to other important aspects of rail travel. One in particular, raised by many, was the complexity of the fares structure.
Two conflicting views emerged. On the one hand there was the view that the present, airline-like system of rail fares was beneficial in that it offered those who could accommodate the restrictions, and get their booking in quickly, the opportunity to travel by rail very cheaply; more cheaply than in the British Rail days. It enabled people why otherwise could not afford to travel an opportunity to do so.
On the other hand it was though that fares were too expensive for those who had no opportunity to book in advance or could not copy with the restrictions which were attached to the very cheap fares. Many thought that intermediary fare where the pre-booking requirement and other conditions were not so onerous, had become too expensive.
There was a general call for the whole fares structure to be made more understandably so that travellers could recognise and take advantage of the bargains on offer. Because then bargains were limited in number it would be more satisfactory to the majority of travellers to do away with them and make small reductions on other fares. Train operators should have an obligation placed on them to require their booking clerks to offer the cheapest options to travellers.
This brought into focus the matter of timetabling and the lack of an integrated transport system where buses met trains and vice versa and train arrived in time for passengers to catch ferries any aircraft. All this did happen sometimes but it was far from universal. It was difficult to find out about bus timetables. The Wales Travel Information Line carried fully integrated travel information but nobody seemed to do so elsewhere. Bus service particularly in rural areas, were criticised, though again there were instances of very good service: There are no Bus Users Committees, except in London (LTUC) and Northern Ireland which have statutory bodies, to which to complain, though the National Federation of Bus Users campaign energetically on behalf of passengers. Local Authorities, we were told, have regular liaison meetings with transport operators where Councillors can raise problems on behalf of constituents.
Many other matters were raised by the eager audience. Clearly transport in general and the using trains and buses in particular are matters c concern to NCF members. Groups may like the idea of inviting Train and Bus Operators to send representatives to meetings. Some Groups have done this already, others should do so, it has many benefits.
This session started with a talk given by Jacqui Webster the Consumer Affairs Analyst from the Food Standards Agency (FSA). It was her job to make sure that the views of consumers, and particularly low income consumers, were known to the FSA.
She explained that the FSA is a fully fledged non-ministerial Government agency accountable to Parliament through Health Ministers and through their equivalents in Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland. The Meat Hygiene Service is an agency of the FSA.
It was reassuring to hear that, in considering a matters within its remit, the FSA observed the principle that 'consumers come first' and prided itself or being open and accessible and being an independent voice.
We all consume food and have the right to know that the food we buy is safe. We spend the largest part of our household expenditure on food, and the lower down the scale of income the higher the proportion spent on food, but the actual amount is, of course, less, with the consequence of poor diet and nutrition.
The FSA has taken on a new area of responsibility, that of nutrition. Their aim is to improve our diet ant particularly the diet of those less well-off or who did no enjoy, for whatever other reasons, a healthy diet. The FSA plans to set up a Nutrition Stakeholder Forum jointly with the Department of Health to meet and exchange information and ensure co-ordinated action Consumers and consumer organisations will be represented on this forum.
Public perceptions of risk are often far from reality. I bad diet is responsible for at least 100,000 unnecessary deaths a year, far more than food poisoning, while genetically modified food and the use of growth hormones has not caused a single death
The FSA policy is not to shy away from difficult situations, to be honest about uncertainty and to trust people with information even if this information is worrying. For instance, handling food, though unavoidable, always carries a risk.
Foot and Mouth disease is not, directly, a food safety matter though the Meat Hygiene Service is heavily involved. However, there are safety implications with the escape of Dioxins from slaughter pyres and elsewhere.
The FSA liaises closely with the European Food Authority. In the UK a new Consumer Committee is to be set-up to improve communication to and consultation with different groups of consumers. It will consist of twelve members, six of which will be nominated, drawn from mainstream consumer organisations, and six will be drawn from those who reply to advertisements placed in newspapers in September. The Agency wants to attract people from minority backgrounds and those who can help by being familiar with the problems of those who are disadvantaged.
There is also to be a new Consumer Branch within FSA to raise the profile of consumer issues. It will advise staff in other departments about the impact of their policies on different groups of consumers. The new branch will also advise staff on how to consult Consumer organisations. Workshops will be run for Consumer Representatives and the branch will participate in external events - such as this Annual Consumer Assembly!
Working with Consumer organisations is two way dialogue and the FSA is eager for food feedback. There are plenty of opportunities for this; through the open Board meetings, attending the meetings the FSA has with consumer organisations, by phoning or writing or connecting with the FSA web-site (www.foodstandards.gov.uk).
Many people present were concerned about the lack of food and diet education in schools. School meals were also criticised, though several people praised them. What teaching about domestic science' there was could be found under the umbrella heading of Science and Technology and, in some schools, the teaching was excellent, though in many the opportunity was lost or not recognised. Teaching about food and diet was also being introduced into primary schools. In France pupils were taught food appreciation. The need for guidance on food and diet matters in their own language for minority groups was stressed, particularly for asylum-seekers.
The licensing of Butchers had been introduced, though not without protest and controversy. The suggestion that food establishments should be similarly licensed has been made before, and several members present thought it would help towards a better standard of food safety. Hover there was also a counter-argument that caterers and similar businesses are already covered by tough legislation and no more is needed. What is needed is proper enforcement. One of the early initiatives of the FSA was the establishment of a Framework Agreement with Local Authorities to provide greater transparency on their important food law enforcement work. Local Authorities are being audited to ensure that this is being carried out diligently.
back to menu