What is your role as director of the Consumers' Association?

Sheila McKechnie:I don't like the term chief executive, but I suppose that most accurately describes my day-to-day role. I am the person in charge of the organisation as a whole. I report formally to a council of trustees, who are trustees of the charity. CA has over 500 staff and a turnover in excess of £50 million and are unlike most charities in that we don't raise our money through collection boxes or donations. We raise it by selling information.

Do you work closely with business or unions?

Sheila McKechnie:Consumers' Association is fiercely independent and by and large doesn't enter into partnerships with anybody unless it's to pursue a specific consumer objective. But we do a lot of lobbying of government on specific proposals, legislative changes etc. We also do quite a lot of work in Parliament with MPs and we talk endlessly to people in industry and the civil service.

If you ask us to describe our role, very simply in terms of the consumer agenda, we're encouraging consumers to do things for themselves. I think consumer power is growing, but it's still largely unfocussed in the UK. I think consumers are beginning to realise that sitting back and being passive when things happen to them results in nothing changing. So I would see the Which? readership in particular as a very, very positive force for shaking up companies because they tend to be quite vocal and pro-active. They then make things better for everybody.

Can you give us an example of your campaigns having had an effect in Westminster?

Sheila McKechnie:Our campaigns are very wide-ranging. Historically, breaking the solicitors' monopoly on house conveyancing is a good example. Lots of the consumer protection legislation in the UK is down to CA.

In more recent years, we've campaigned on many, many financial services issues. We were very involved in campaigning for a new regulator. I think we were also largely responsible for getting food safety out of the hands of MAFF and into a new independent Food Standards Agency.

There are other specific issues where have been successful. One is to do with professions in medicine. We've had a couple of successes with private member bills to make sure that doctors either cannot continue to practise if they've been found guilty of professional misconduct and also one to stop people resigning as a way of avoiding any investigation into consumer complaints.

So we deal with a very wide range of things. People probably wouldn't realise that we are the main group in terms of the debate over direct-to-consumer-advertising of prescription drugs. We've done a report on why that shouldn't be allowed. We're also the lead organisation in the UK and in Europe trying to get drug companies to provide good information when giving medicines to children. A lot of medicines for children do not have specified doses - it's entirely up to the GP. If the drug is going to be used by children, there must be thorough research and clear information.

So everything from that to the Enterprise Bill and competition issues is within our remit. We also investigate big mergers which have an effect on consumers - like in the case of the American Airlines and British Airways, we would submit evidence. We were also involved in the licensing of mini cabs. The Private Members' Bill was taken through the House by Sir George Young, but all the preparation work was done by Consumers' Association.

The government wants to have a public debate on GM food this autumn. What do consumers think about GM?

Sheila McKechnie:We've been tracking consumer attitudes to GM Foods since the 90s. 'GM Dilemmas, the report we have just issued on GM, is the latest piece of research and we did it now to see if consumer attitudes have changed. The other reason for doing it is that the Prime Minister said in May that he was going to make resources available for a wide-ranging public debate.

What we are concerned about is that the consumer's position is being distorted. People are far too ready to say that consumers don't understand scientists and they don't understand the risk. But in fact I would say that the myths are much more on the other side. The government and scientists often have much more erroneous views about what consumers think than consumers have of them.

In general, what our research shows is that consumers are neither violently anti- nor violently pro-GM. They are concerned, but have a very balanced view. They are not, as many scientists say, irrational about risks. Most of the comments in our report are very sound and have common sense. I think the government is failing to recognise the way the public is perceiving GM - that is a real failure, and a lot of it is to do with the fact that ministers reduce everything in the debate to science. In fact, I think one of the most misleading bits of the Prime Minister's statement was: "Lets concentrate on facts." The problem in this area is that we don't know - there are some areas where the jury is still out and we haven't really done the research.

We want the government to realise that decision-making in a democratic society goes beyond science. Scientists on tap, not scientists on top. Consumers are concerned about ethical issues, issues of choice and domination of the food chain by supermarket giants.

If you had ten minutes alone with the prime minister, what would you urge the prime minister to do on this issue?

Sheila McKechnie:I would want to put to him what consumers are saying and try to get him to understand that they can't be persuaded simply by more information. They can't be persuaded by statements - they have to be convinced that there is a social benefit and a consumer benefit. I would want to get that over and actually show him that consumers take a very sensible attitude. Okay, there may be scare stories in the media, but they don't take them too seriously.

Do you yourself eat GM Foods?

Sheila McKechnie:Not to my knowledge - but that's the problem. How would I know what I am eating if it's not labelled? I have queried one or two food products which say "GM Free" on the label - there's no way that could be accurate. Companies should not be making that sort of claim.

We're quite surprised that the Food Standards Agency, which tends to be pro-consumer on most things, is only willing at the moment to label if there is GM in the final product. All our research shows that it's the process which worries people. If they don't want GM, they don't want it in the processing either. So we're having a bit of an argument there, but it looks as if the EU will take a different approach from the FSA.

Which supermarkets have a good track record on this?

Sheila McKechnie:That was one of the interesting areas we looked at. We wrote to all the major supermarkets and outlets. By and large, supermarkets have a patchy record. Most are responding to consumer concerns and aiming to be GM-free but some have done more than others in terms of extending this guarantee to derivatives and further up the food chain to animal feed.

Endowment mortgages are in the headlines for the wrong reasons. Who is entitled to compensation?

Sheila McKechnie:The first thing to say is that this is an issue about people having been given bad advice. It is not an issue about the fall in the equities market making the product under-perform. It is not an issue about rising house prices, nor does it have anything to do with interest rates. It is very simply about whether people were told about the risks associated with an endowment mortgage and whether individuals were told about the alternative - a repayment mortgage - which did not have the same level of risk.

We did some research where we went out and asked people what they were told, and 61 per cent of a very big sample said they were told that the endowment would be 'guaranteed' to pay off the mortgage or 'would definitely' pay off the mortgage, or words to that effect.

So there are significant grounds for complaint. The most obvious one is that when someone was sold an endowment and the endowment went on ten years after they retired, the financial adviser should have ascertained that they could meet that commitment, otherwise an endowment would be totally inappropriate.

Who is to blame?

Sheila McKechnie:These endowment mortgages were sold predominately by what are called 'tied agents' - agents working for the big banks or insurance companies and they were selling them on a commission-driven basis. Independent advisers were also involved - especially those who are commission-based. The temptation to sell an endowment mortgage - when you are getting commission - is what caused the mis-selling. We think they were so keen to sell these products that they didn't make clear the risks associated with them.

Should the government be taking action or is the Financial Services Authority responsible?

Sheila McKechnie:We've been far from happy with the way the FSA has handled this one. We wrote a letter to Howard Davies earlier this year setting out how we wanted them to handle it. We didn't demand, contrary to some recent press reports, that he conduct a full review, but we did say there should be a graduated approach focusing on the companies where there have been the biggest problems.

We felt that the FSA have played down the issue and are concerned that Howard Davies said he didn't want to raise people's expectations. Actually their job is to help consumers to make complaints where there is grounds for compensation. We are doing now what the FSA could have done, but chose not to. The FSA at the moment is more concerned about protecting the industry than it is about protecting consumers.

The government is focused on a lot of issues at the moment - PFI and Iraq to name but two. How do you plan to keep the issues of endowment mortgages and GM food in the spotlight?

Sheila McKechnie:The endowment issue is simply not going to go away. People are going to continue to get letters every two years saying what their shortfall is. Those that don't realise now will realise in the future that they have a major problem. For some people coming up to retirement, whose endowment is not going to pay off their mortgage, the only option is to sell their home. These are the stories that keep the media interested. We always tell people not to cash in their endowment, as they will lose a lot more. We would advise people to start putting more money into paying it off to accumulate enough capital, but don't use another endowment, use an ISA or similar.

We would tell first time buyers that there are very few circumstances under which an endowment mortgage would be correct for their situation. Repayment mortgages are good deals at the moment. I suppose the problem is that if interest rates go up, the cost of the mortgage will increase, but that isn't very likely in the foreseeable future.

What would you like to see in the Queen's Speech?

Sheila McKechnie:I think top of our list at the moment is for the government to sort out the pensions crisis. The collapse of final salary schemes, the under-performance of pensions, people not saving enough and the problem of treating pensions in isolation from long-term care all need to be sorted out. Our pensions system is in a complete mess and the government has to take responsibility for that.

We also may be interested in the Water Bill and the Communications Bill. Ofcom is still a very live debate in terms of what kind of regulator it is going to be. Is it going to be an economic regulator or is it going to be as people like David Putnam want and also look at the content and the impact of television on society?

The government may include a Corporate Manslaughter Bill. Yet, junior and middle management may argue it could cause chaos, that no one will drive a train or clear a runway. what is your response?

Sheila McKechnie:There is a terrible problem with the current law. We've seen it time and time again when there have been public inquiries into major disasters that the current Health and Safety at Work legislation makes it extremely difficult to bring a manslaughter charge. I think that if senior executives don't take personal as well as corporate responsibility, then they should be made to. Corporate manslaughter will undoubtedly be confined to what lawyers call "the operating mind of the company"- i.e in CA's case mine or my senior directors'! It wouldn't affect junior members of staff. They would only be liable if they were directly guilty of a criminal offence.