AGM Minutes 2005

'''Minutes of the forty-eighth Annual General Meeting of CONSUMERS' ASSOCIATION held on Saturday 26 November 2005 at the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), 66 Portland Place, London. W1B 1AD'''

starting at 2.15pm

PRESENT: Mr Brian Yates (Chairman), Mr Peter Vicary-Smith (Chief Executive), and some 145 Ordinary members of the Association.

'''1/48 MINUTES OF THE 47TH ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF CONSUMERS' ASSOCIATION HELD ON 27 NOVEMBER 2004'''

The Minutes of the meeting held on 27 November 2004 were APPROVED.

2/48 CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT

Mr Yates welcomed members to the meeting, the third to be held at RIBA.

The Chairman said that over the last twelve months there had been a process of ensuring that the brands change to Which? was properly embedded across the whole organisation. There had also been considerable focus on giving customers better value and leading campaigns that delivered positive change for consumers.

With the march of globalisation and international markets offering consumers choice as never before, it was essential for Which? to be committed to working at a national and international level to benefit consumers. This was being done by playing an active part on the Executive of BEUC, the European Umbrella Consumer body. Much of UK law was now made in Europe and during the past year Which? had been lobbying for improvements in food labelling among other matters.

Which? had been pushing for major changes in the way Consumers International (CI) ran itself and the focus of its work on consumers. Over the next year, the plan was to make CI a more campaign focussed organisation driving up the profile of consumers and their interests on the international stage. Which? will review how it can reach out to disadvantaged consumers outside Europe, maybe in a more directed way than through CI.

Closer to home, the drive to increase value for customers was delivering some major changes in the products and services. Two areas were of particular note. First, Which? Online, had seen a 24% increase in the number of subscribers over the previous year and Computing Which? had now broken the 50,000 subscriber mark. However, even with this success there was a need to continue investing in products and services. The Chairman reported that the plan was to spend £2.5m over the coming year to ensure that more value was returned to Online customers and enhance the user experience.

However, the main Which? magazine was still losing subscribers albeit very slowly and this was a challenge. Council was working hard with management to keep costs down. In order to deliver the investment as soon as possible and take advantage of the strong balance sheet, the decision had been taken to spend most of this money in the current year. This in turn meant that at the 2006 AGM a loss for 2005/06 of £2m would be reported. However, Council believed that the investment, in delivering extra value for customers, would pay off in enhanced recruitment and retention.

Council had also spent time establishing the future direction of campaigning which in turn had involved some tough choices and difficult decisions. As a result, Which? was now more focussed and even more ambitious than ever before. There would be a focus on three campaign themes namely food, health and personal finance although there would also be engagement in a broader debate such as choice and regulation. There would still be scope for contributing in other areas where necessary. An ambition was for members to feel more involved in the campaigning and there was the opportunity to be campaign supporters through the website and by email.

The Chairman said that he would be hosting a reception in Belfast for members based in Ireland. This would be an opportunity for members to meet campaigning staff.

Finally the Chairman paid tribute to Susan Baker, A council member from 1993 to 2001 who had died the previous month. Susan had brought passion and commitment to her involvement of the organisation. In conclusion the Chairman said that he believed that the focus for growth and continued success was the right one and looked forward to reporting on more improvements in 2006.

3/48 CHIEF EXECUTIVE'S STATEMENT

Mr Vicary-Smith said that during the last twelve months he had found Which? to be an organisation trusted and respected by the public which could achieve real change in the corridors of power. There was a solid membership base yet there was greater potential to do more for consumers and customers.

Mr Vicary Smith said that he wanted to move from a relatively stable position to one of growth. He had been listening to customers and reflecting on what that meant. The good news was that customers liked Which? and although the product was good, they would like more depth and coverage of products and more up to date information especially on products like digital cameras. The added value from Which? extra and W? LS was not widely known. The more people used Which? products then the more they liked them. Conversely, the main reason for cancellation was that the magazine had not been used for purchasing decisions.

This information had led to three specific targets being identified. First that Which? would be number one in everything it did, second that it would continually return value to customers and third, greater utility of products would be encouraged.

In respect of the first, this was a galvanising mantra for the organisation. In some areas the best information available was already provided, but this had to be extended to all areas. Customers had to be confident that when they subscribed to Which? they were buying the best consumer information advice and support in all areas. To support this objective an extra £1m was being invested in product research in each year leading to a substantial increase in products tested. The second point was about returning value to customers. There was a very loyal customer base and from December there would be more pages in the magazines. This would all be done within the current subscription prices.

Finally it was necessary to get customers to use the products and services and to get greater utility from them. There were many services and products provided and it was necessary to communicate their value much more.

In conclusion the Chief Executive said that he wanted all products revitalised by 2007. After July 2006 there would be no more prize draw. This marketing method alienated too many people who could be natural supporters and was the wrong marketing technique. A wide range of alternatives were being tested.

'''4/48 REPORT OF THE COUNCIL OF MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2005'''

The Chairman said that as in previous years, he had invited all members to submit written questions in advance of the meeting. Approximately twelve members in attendance had submitted questions in advance of the meeting. Their questions would be taken during the course of the afternoon.

Mr Fleming asked whether GPs could be encouraged to write prescriptions for cheaper generic drugs rather than expensive named drugs where the effectiveness was the same. A second question was on postcode prescribing.

In reply Nick Stace (Campaigns and Communications Director) said that generic drugs were often as effective as named drugs. Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin was an important source of advice for prescribes throughout the UK. It was important that doctors and other prescribes were up to date with the latest clinical evidence so that the most appropriate drugs were prescribed while remaining mindful of the fact that the overall NHS budget was finite and that in general generic drugs offered the same benefits to patients.

There was evidence to show that some drugs were approved in some areas while in others they were not. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence was set up to iron out the postcode lottery but a recent audit commission report had highlighted that many primary care trusts and NHS trusts were failing to implement NICE guidance.

Mr Gazey asked whether Which? would instigate a thorough investigation of POSTCOMM to determine whether it was serving the needs of Royal Mail Users.

In reply Mr Stace said that although this wasn't an area where Which? was active, there was no evidence to suggest that POSTCOMM was causing problems. However, there was an independent watchdog, Postwatch, which appeared to have been robust in challenging POSTCOMM to compensate consumers for the failure of the Royal Mail to met targets.

Dr Herxheimer asked what the campaign plan was for getting rid of trans fats in food.

In reply, Robert Pickard (Council Member) said that as part of the nutrition campaign to reduce barriers to healthy eating, Which? had been calling on the government to set targets to eliminate trans fats from food and to label them as well as saturates. There had been some support among MPs and Helen Southworth MP had tabled a private members bill calling for improved nutrition labelling. Some retailers had started to take independent action. Which? was keeping up the pressure through lobbying work and through the magazine.

Mr Jones asked why Which? was keen on Home Information Packs as the requirement for a survey, commissioned and paid for by the seller, would add considerably to the cost of buying and selling houses and which a prudent buyer couldn't rely on.

In reply Mr Stace said that Which? had been supportive of the packs for a number of years as they would speed up house purchase and cut down the number of wasted transactions. The Home Condition Report (HCR) that would be contained in the packs could be trusted and would be carried out by trained inspectors and would give purchasers a good idea about the state of a property. They would have a legal duty to be as objective as possible. A member questioned whether the buyer would be able to trust a survey paid for by the seller.

Mr Kostiuk asked what could be done to encourage more people to use public transport and would it help if there were simpler and fairer structures on the railways.

In reply Mr Stace said that as part of a Which? report in February 2005, Alistair Darling MP had supported a fairer fare structure which would charge commuters more and casual users less. Which? has not taken a position on whether people should be encouraged to use public transport as some people would always choose to use their cars and it was very difficult to represent a consumer view.

Mr Levinger asked whether Which? would be prepared to lead a campaign for the stricter regulation of hedge funds.

In reply the Chairman said that a forthcoming response to an FSA consultation would say that Which? was not in favour of banning these products being sold to retail investors but that the FSA needed to improve regulation and disclosure. Also, where funds were not fully regulated by UK authorities, this needed to be made clear. The charges for these products was high and so it was important that if firms marketed these products to consumers, that a realistic comparison of risk and return (after charges) was made clear.

The Chairman said he had received a question from Ms Moerman saying that computers and mobile phones were being made obsolete by the unavailability of batteries and could Which? highlight4 environmental friendliness' in reports.

In reply Liam McCormack (Head of Which? Research) said that Which? had looked at the availability of spare parts in the past, but for domestic appliances rather than high tech products. Laptop and mobile phone companies tended to claim that spare batteries were available for five years. On top of that, rapidly changing product lines meant that many consumers changed products more rapidly than this. Consequently few consumers had raised the problem of unavailable batteries.

A member asked whether shops could be persuaded to provide recycling facilities for batteries.

The Chairman replied that this was something where pressure at a local level, perhaps from local authorities, could be effective. Although Dr Herxheimer said this should come from Which?

A member asked when the next report on batteries would be published in Which?. Mr McCormack said that the next report would be in 2006 and would cover disposable and rechargeable batteries.

Mr Pocock asked (i) whether the rebranding of the organisation under the name Which? meant that the Memorandum and Articles of Association needed to be amended and (ii) could winners of the best buy monthly competition be named in Which?

In reply the Chairman said that the legal names of the companies, Consumers' Association and Which? Limited were unchanged and therefore the Memorandum and Articles did not have to be amended.

In respect of the second point, Malcolm Coles (Editor of Which?) said that from the spring this information would be published in Which? magazine.

Dr Roston asked whether any action had been taken in the last year to prevent companies from receiving a percentage of a call charge when they kept customers waiting when dialling 0870 numbers.

The Chairman said that this wasn't a key area for Which? although it was of interest to members. Ofcom was the independent regulator and was consulting on proposals to increase consumer protection measures governing the use of 0845 and 0870 numbers. The first stage closed in January 2005 and further research was commissioned and new proposals issued on 28 September 2005. This said that after one year of using 0870 numbers the price should be charged at the same rate as a call to a geographic number. Much greater transparency was needed. The Chairman suggested that members interested should look at the Ofcom consultation which was available online.

Several supplementary questions were raised and the Chairman encouraged members to make their points direct to Ofcom.

The Chairman said that Mr Terrett had expressed concern that people using dial up internet services could find that their call was diverted to a premium rate number and that unwanted websites would pop up on screen.

In reply Helen Parker said that moving to broadband was a way of escaping the problem and ICSTIS did offer help to people in getting compensation. BT offered free software that alerted users if calls were being diverted to another number. Firewall and anti virus software was also very valuable as long as it was kept up to date.

The Chairman read out a question from Mr Whittington who had raised concerns about the design of packaging which was often unnecessary and was sometimes badly designed.

In reply Liam McCormack said that in 2000 Health Which? had looked at the issue of food packaging and had highlighted a number of problems people faced. It was clearly an issue of concern, and although it wasn't a major campaign area, it would be listed as a topic for further report.

A member suggested that a lot of environmental damage was done by packaging and it would be interesting if customers brought all their packaging back to the supermarkets they purchased the items from.

Mr Wrench said that the quality of fruit and vegetables in supermarkets was very variable and the label 'class 1' did not give a guarantee of reliable fresh produce i.e. tomatoes class 1 did not guarantee reliable fresh produce.

In reply Louise Hanson (Head of Campaigns) said that EC marketing standards required that any regulated fruit and vegetables, including tomatoes offered to the consumer had to be of acceptable quality and accurately labelled.

This issue had been investigated in Which? In 2004 when the findings showed that many UK supermarkets went one stage further than EC standards with their own stringent specifications.

A member reported that the labelling industry was investigating the use of 'smart' labels on fruit that could tell how fresh fruit was and give that information to the consumer.

The Chairman reported that a letter had been received from Mr Read about the decision of Which? Legal Service to stop providing written advice for a fee.

In reply Mr Webster (Operations Director) said that the reason for this was because of advice from the Law Society. Written advice was defined as reserved work that could only be undertaken by solicitors working in an organisation that was itself run by solicitors. This situation would change in two or three years however. Which? Legal Service had recently extended into a number of new areas including employment law and disputes with neighbours and some 10% of calls were now received on these aspects. There had been a 25% increase in Which? Legal service members over the last year and the number of calls had doubled.

Mr Miller said that he had been a subscriber to Which? Legal Service for many years and recently received a letter saying that value had been extended. However this was a bit unbalanced as newsletters were only now available by email and written advice was no longer provided so more balance was needed in future.

A member asked whether the consumer should give a voluntary donation to his or her favourite charity instead of paying for written legal advice. Mr Webster said that the administration of that type of arrangement would be difficult.

Mr Kitchen asked whether the decline in subscriptions to Which? could be slowed by offering the magazine as a wedding gift plus vouchers for books. Mr Kitchen also commented on the new layout in the magazine.

In reply Mr Vicary-Smith said that it was necessary for people to recognise the value of Which? and that wedding gifts was an area under consideration. Any ideas of how to get more people to join the organisation would be looked at. 'Member get member' had been effective in other organisations as they were the greatest ambassadors.

Regarding the layout of the magazine, this was something under constant consideration and management would be looking at this. It was important to manage the balancing act between keeping existing customers happy and attracting new members.

Mr Freeman asked what steps the organisation was taking to get a broader based and younger membership. In reply Mr Vicary Smith said that Which? Online was attracting younger people and females. The types of products tested attracted different people. If Which? could be the premier source for i pod advice then that would be a very positive step.

Mr Faulkner said that The Charity Commission was now more proactive in regulating the charity world. Could Which? put a spotlight on what they are doing. Information concerning the lottery fund was deficient and there was little in the public domain and this needed to be recognised.

Mr Vicary-Smith said he was sympathetic to this point as charities were picking up the slack in many areas and it was important that charities were accountable. Which? had been interested in the regulation of charity fundraising and had put in strong representations. As a consequence, the regulatory body would be independent with a majority of independent members. However it wasn't an area where Which? took a strong campaigning line.

Mr Wagner asked whether Treatment Notes would become available through the Which? website. Ms Parker said that they would be available in early 2006.

It was RESOLVED that the Annual Report and Accounts for 2004/05 be received.

5/48 APPOINTMENT NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF COUNCIL MEMBERS

The Chairman said that there were four vacancies on the Council of Management. They arose from the retirements of Neville Duncan, Martin Morton, Jim Woodward-Nutt and Christopher Zealley.

The Chairman announced that five valid nominations had been received for these vacancies namely John Berry, Neville Duncan, Margaret Ginman, Steve Woolgar and Jim Woodward-Nutt.

In accordance with Article 3.7.6, the Chairman called for a poll and instructed the Secretary to arrange for the despatch of ballot papers during the following week to all ordinary members for return to the independent scrutineers Electoral Reform Ballot Services, by 6 January 2006. The results would be notified as soon as possible thereafter* and would be deemed to be the resolution of the AGM. The Chairman said that members voting in the election would have the choice of voting by post, telephone or internet.

(*The results of the 2005 Council elections are given below).

6/48 RE-APPOINTMENT OF AUDITORS

The Chairman moved that Deloitte and Touche LLP be re-appointed as Auditors, to hold office until the conclusion of the next General Meeting at which accounts are laid before the company.

The Resolution was duly seconded and declared CARRIED.

7/48 REMUNERATION OF THE AUDITORS

The Chairman MOVED: THAT the remuneration of the Auditors for the ensuing year be fixed by the Council of Management.

The Resolution was duly seconded and declared CARRIED.

There being no other business the meeting ended at 4.20pm.

'''Flection of the Members of Council 2005'''

The results of the 2005 election, which closed on Friday 6 January 2005. were as follows:

4 vacancies

Margaret Ginman 3550

Stephen Woolgar   3482

John Berry             1693

James Woodward-Nutt 3056

Neville Duncan        3588