MR PAT MCFADDEN MP AND MR IAN WATMORE

10 MAY 2007

  Q420  Chairman: When Sir Peter Gershon came to see us two years ago he was really damning about all this choice stuff. He thought it was dreadfully inefficient and when talking about the Inland Revenue he says "There are armies of people in the Inland Revenue Department who do nothing but receive envelopes, open envelopes, take the cheques out and bank them."[4] He wanted to sort all that out by letting people do it on-line. He says, "There ought to be a way of encouraging people to use the lowest cost channel. That is an area where I would reduce choice personally". What I want to know is: is that the official Government position, you would reduce choice in order to secure efficiencies?

  Pat McFadden: I think you have to be careful. For example, we do want people to use on-line services. They can be very efficient and the cost per transaction can be a lot lower than some other ways but not everybody has access to that so you cannot just say that you have to do that but given the choice a lot of people will. One of the things we have found is that giving people the capacity to renew their car tax on-line that has been quite popular and about nine million people have used the service but there might be some who do not want to. So, yes, of course by doing things on-line you can have efficiencies. I think you are also changing public service in line with people's expectations of what they can do elsewhere in their lives. People are busy these days and they often do not have time to get to Post Offices between nine and five and so on.

  Q421  Chairman: Expanding the menu is good but I want to know if the state is different from the private sector? We know what is happening in the private sector. My constituents and yours are probably telling you that they are affronted by the fact that BT are now going to penalise people who do not want to pay by direct debit. Many of my constituents do not want to pay like that, that is not how they organise their finances, but BT are saying that it is in their interests to do it that way. What I am asking you really is whether the state is neutral about access methods and would it ever seek to discriminate against people in terms of access methods?

  Pat McFadden: I think the state is not quite the same as a private business in that regard. Alongside what we want to do in terms of different channels—whether they are calling up on the phone or doing a transaction on-line—there is a recognition that face-to-face contact can also be valuable. What I think is legitimate for the state to do is to ask in what circumstances do we really need face-to-face contact? Who is that particularly valuable for? If not everyone needs that but it is particularly valuable for a particular set of people, can we concentrate the resources there rather than having a one size fits all approach, which in the end may not be in line with how a lot of people want to do their transaction with you or how they live their lives today. I suppose where I am coming from on this is that the state has a duty to respond to the changes taking place in society and to people's expectations of service. Increasingly, certainly for the two thirds of people who have ready access to the Internet—not for everyone and we must always remember that—and who are used to, for example, ordering a book or a CD from Amazon at a time of their own choosing (they can do it at midnight if they want to) then having services available on-line is important and we would look very behind the curve of how society was living if we did not respond and change the way we do things.

  Q422  Chairman: I understand that, yes. Ian, did you want to come in?

  Mr Watmore: Yes, I have a couple of points to make. The first thing is that I think the experience we have is that when you provide better customer service in the way that was just described it is actually cheaper to provide that service so it is good for the person receiving the service and good for the tax payer. In the case of the Pensions Service we have hard evidence as to that. The costs have fallen as the Service quality has risen and in fact staff satisfaction in that provision of service has gone up. The Pensions Service would say it is good for the elderly person, good for the tax payer and good for the member of staff. I think we have quite a lot of evidence that all three of those work together. In terms of channels, we are in an era where we are moving from one set of channels to another and you cannot just switch overnight. To give an example, on-line tax filing. I think over 40 % of people now file their tax returns on-line. Two or three years ago that was 10 to 15 % so we are on that curve up. If we go to somewhere like Canada who are slightly ahead on that curve they have 50 or 60 % of the people filing on-line but they still get 30 to 40 % who insist on sending in a paper document. Unless you are going to say, "That is impossible; you are not allowed to do that anymore" they are now thinking of innovative new ways of taking that paper end and dealing with it. We are in an era where we are moving from an old fashioned role of largely paper driven contact to a new role and we are half way through that journey.

  Q423  Chairman: All I am getting at is whereas easyJet can say "You will not fly with us unless you book on-line" the state could never and would never say something comparable, would it?

  Pat McFadden: There is no point in telling my mother that she has to do on-line transactions if she does not have a computer.

  Mr Watmore: No, but there are niche areas where we can do things.

  Q424  Chairman: We are interested in complaints and have been for years because we keep an eye on the Ombudsman and so on and I am sure colleagues want to ask you about why the Government seems to have taken its eye off the complaints area a bit. Why are you taking the Ombudsman to court? Why is the Government locked into battle with the Ombudsman in the courts?

  Pat McFadden: Over the pensions issue?

  Chairman: Yes.

  Pat McFadden: I think you know the answer to this. The Government has taken a view on that recommendation that we have taken certain measures to compensate pensioners whose schemes have gone belly up. These measures did not exist in the past; the Government has disagreed that it has a responsibility for fully compensating everyone for those schemes. In other words, it is not prepared to say that it has taken the responsibility for a number of non-state pension schemes going belly up. This is really an argument about what should the Government's responsibilities be in such circumstances. The Government could argue—the DWP ministers would know the answer better than me—that they did not have a responsibility to have a financial assistance scheme, nevertheless they have said, "We understand these people have got into this position not through any fault of their own, but we do not accept it is the Government's responsibility."

  Q425  Chairman: I do not want to get into the substance, but what I want to get is the principle here. It seems to me that Parliament intended the Ombudsman to be the person who decided whether there had been maladministration or not in particular cases. They argue about remedies and redress and all that; that is quite separate. Surely the Government should never seek to suggest that it rather than the Ombudsman can decide whether there has been maladministration or not because that is what the Ombudsman is put in place to do.

  Pat McFadden: As I say, the ministers directly involved in this may be better placed to answer this, but I think the answer would be that the Ombudsman does have his or her role. The Government must be answerable to the public for how it spends money and how it decides to respond to a particular decision or a particular ruling and the Ombudsman cannot take over public expenditure.

  Q426  Mr Burrowes: Today of all days it is inevitable that there will reflection on the Blair years of government and you no doubt have had an intimate involvement in advising the Prime Minister over years in opposition and in government and now in the Cabinet Office. Would you say that this Government will go down in history as a listening government?

  Pat McFadden: I think you always have to listen and the process will never be perfect. I think all of us as politicians and as governments have to respond to public opinion. I remember one particular speech the Prime Minister made, staying on our pensions theme, where he stood up at a party conference and said something along the lines of "Seventy-five pence, we've got the message" and that was in response to some pretty significant discontent—if I can put it that way—among pensioners to the pensions rise that year. I am sure there are other examples along the line but in any democracy the government had better listen to the public. In the end of course ministers have to take decisions. Listening does not mean you can always go with whatever the latest opinion poll says, but ultimately at elections you are answerable for the decisions taken so you have to listen.

  Q427  Mr Burrowes: In terms of your responsibility in the overall consultation, would you say the Government has consulted well?

  Pat McFadden: The Government produces about 500 consultations a year and I think it is really important in this to be clear about what is consulted about and what is not. There are really two types of consultation. There is one around policy and there is one around implementation. The ones around implementation are actually the most common where we have decided on a policy but we ask how this should be implemented. That is what most consultations are about. When it comes to policy—I think this is really important and goes to the heart of where I suspect you may want to go with your line of questioning—governments can consult on a particular aspect of policy but they may have decided two thirds of it or three quarters of it already, so what is important is that the government is clear in consultation about what it is we are asking about and what it is that we have already made our minds up about. I think that is important to get right. The other thing is that when we think about consultation it is not a perfect science, it is not a perfect process. My understanding is that you have had earlier witnesses in this inquiry who talked about the engaged 1 % or something along those lines, and I think all of us as politicians are always conscious of how to reach beyond those already empowered and engaged. When you have a consultation it is important to examine the responses and listen to the responses, but it is also important to remember that it is the elected ministers and the elected government that will at the end decide and answer for those decisions to the electorate. I think consultation has to be framed in that context.

  Q428  Mr Burrowes: In the Cabinet Office there is the consultation process for the nuclear power debate which was found to be seriously flawed by Justice Sullivan. Would you not agree that there is at least some credence in what the Guardian leader says: "There is more arrogance about pretending to listen than there is in announcing a decision and defending it. If the government is certain that it wants more nuclear stations, it should say so; if it wants to hear opinions first, it should do so. Trying to have things both ways is a feeble way to behave."[5]

  Pat McFadden: I do not agree with the Guardian leader but let me just respond to this question about the particular consultation because I think it is important to be clear about what this finding was about. My understanding is that this finding was heavily based on the use of the word "fullest"; the Government had promised the fullest possible consultation and that the judge thought that that had not been lived up to because information had not been provided which would have allowed the fullest possible consultation. That is actually slightly different from saying that you have consulted on the principle of whether or not you want nuclear power stations and you have already made up your mind. Those are two different criticisms and I think it is important not to get them mixed up.

  Q429  Mr Burrowes: These criticisms are perpetuated when we have e-petitions on road pricing and the like. People are not seeing that there is going to be any real change from those petitions and that consultation. They say the Government is giving the impression of wanting to listen but not actually doing it.

  Pat McFadden: People who sent in an e-petition on road pricing did get an answer. They would not have got an answer like that in the past had they just signed a paper petition. It is important to be clear about what you are doing when you ask the public for their view. You are not just saying, "If X amount of you sign a petition that is what we will do" because government does not work like that. In the end ministers have to take decisions in the round, with people on one side of an argument or the other side of an argument, and then answer for them. On the specifics of the e-petition, people did get a response; they got a full explanation of the policy from the Prime Minister. That would not have had happened if you had had the traditional paper petition because frankly the staff resources of checking all those addresses, writing all those letters, putting them in the post—it just has not really been possible in the past. Whatever people say about e-petitions being a good thing or a bad thing, they enable more of a response than the traditional paper based petition.

  Q430  Mr Burrowes: If the consultation is generally going well why is it being reviewed?

  Pat McFadden: I think you should always be alive to how you can improve things. Our standard model of consultation, as you know, is that it is in written form and there is a normal expectation of it lasting for 12 weeks. I think that works quite well in most cases. Our discussions with people involved in this show that 12 weeks is often thought to be about right for organisations that want to consult their members and so on; sometimes there are issues around summer holidays and so on, but 12 weeks is thought to be in the general ball park. However, you might have a situation where there is a small thing about implementation; it might affect relatively few people. In all those circumstances do you need it to be written and do you need it to last 12 weeks? Possibly not, let us look at that. Also there may be examples—e-petitions may be an example of this—where it seems to have got beyond the normal engaged 1 % who would respond to these things or the organised lobby groups, pressure groups and so on. If we can think about how we do a consultation in a way that does not always just empower the already empowered and organised then that too could be a good thing. That is not to say those organisations are not important and their opinions are not valid, but there is also a case in consultation that those who respond tend to be those with staff, with time, with resources to do it. I think it makes sense to always think about how you can always do something better.

  Q431  Mr Prentice: Do you think people are cynical about the Government's record on consultation?

  Pat McFadden: I am sure some are.

  Q432  Mr Prentice: When the Prime Minister said, after the Greenpeace case that has just been referred to, that it will not affect the policy at all, do you not think that people who feel strongly about civil nuclear power, that they felt kind of let down by it all, that this is just the Government consulting when it has a very clear idea what it is going to do anyway, regardless of what we say?

  Pat McFadden: Cynicism can be produced because of a lack of clarity about what is actually on the table here when we consult and I think it is legitimate for a government to say, "Look, we've made up our minds to do A, B or C but we want to consult you about how we do it" or, "We've made up our minds to do A and B but we are not quite sure about C so we would like your views on C". It may be there are those completely passionately opposed not only to C but to A and B as well who will feel let down by the fact that there is something here called a consultation but actually their objections to this whole shooting match are not being listened to. That may produce a response of cynicism but actually I think my response to this would be to hope that government would be clear about what exactly was being consulted about, what is open for debate, what is not already decided and what is. As I say, I think it is legitimate for elected ministers and an elected government to make decisions about this.

  Q433  Mr Prentice: It is funny the things we consult on and the things we do not consult on. We consult on re-organising the Police Service but we do not consult on breaking up the Home Office.

  Pat McFadden: I know this is something you have raised in the Committee before.

  Q434  Mr Prentice: Have we reached the high-water mark in terms of consultation? I think you told us just a few moments ago there were 500 consultations, is this the high-water mark of consultations or do we need to consult more?

  Pat McFadden: I do not have a crystal ball so I do not know whether the 500 will go up or down. It has remained relatively steady over the last five or six years I think. It is not a figure that varies greatly.

  Q435  Mr Prentice: But you are not telling us that there are areas where we need more consultation.

  Pat McFadden: I think it is possible but I cannot predict the future. A point I would make on this is that you can have too much consultation and people can feel a bit cynical, to use your word; I would say they get impatient. I am sure we have all had examples in our local constituencies of, say, a new development project or a re-development or an old building that needs to be done up and you feel that the local authority or whoever is concerned have consulted until they are blue in the face and in actual fact the demand from local people is, "Why don't you just get on with it?"

  Q436  Mr Prentice: Some people feel jaded, they participate in a consultation exercise that does not make any difference whatsoever.

  Pat McFadden: It is not just about making a difference, it is about what are the responsibilities of elected ministers or an elected local authority. As you know we had this citizens' forum exercise a few months ago and we asked the people who engaged in that, "Do you want lots more consultation or do you want the politicians just to get on with it?" and they were actually divided almost 50/50 on that. Some wanted a lot more consultation and say and others thought that was our job.

  Q437  Mr Prentice: Are there any drawbacks or downsides to these citizens' forums/focus groups?

  Pat McFadden: Nothing is perfect but I think they have upsides and an upside is that it was a long term deliberative exercise over a period of weeks rather than a snapshot opinion poll. You had evidence from an old colleague of mine, Matthew Taylor, a couple of weeks ago where he discussed the public and being passionately in favour of their civil liberties and desperate for us as local politicians to do more about antisocial behaviour and criminals and so on which might mean curtailing some people's civil liberties on the other hand.[6] The term focus group is somewhat unfair because to my mind a focus group is something where there would just an evening's discussion and have 10 people or something. This was a deliberative exercise so that, for example, we asked people about the nine million missed GP appointments every year and then the results showed people's views on that before any discussion and after some of the trade offs could be played out. I think there is value in this sort of thing.

  Q438 Mr Prentice: We do not slavishly follow what they come up with.

  Pat McFadden: No we do not because, as I have said a few times, in the end we have an elected government and elected local authorities and they have to decide and answer for their decisions.

  Q439  Mr Prentice: I was astonished to find out from Douglas Alexander last week when there was a discussion over the road on the cock-up in the ballot papers in the Scottish Parliamentary Elections. He told us that the format of the ballot papers had been tested by a focus group. I do not know if he used the term "focus group" but that got me thinking how much weight should we put on focus groups when we hear about something like that.

  Pat McFadden: I think asking the public is valuable. I think it does inform decisions. You have to ask yourselves this question, if you did not ask the public would you just be saying that the ministers should always just decide based on their own judgment with no reference to the public, based purely on the advice of their officials. As you know we have a constant process of dialogue which we all take part in but in the end a minister has to decide. If the core of your point is, is there value in trying to dig into how the public view things and particularly trying to dig into more than a snapshot, I think very much there is.

5   Leading article, The Guardian, 16 February 2007, p36 Back

6   Q 390-413 Back