I oppose and campaign against use of revenue sharing telephone numbers for access to those public services which are free of a service charge, e.g. the NHS, DWP agency services.

Use of a revenue sharing telephone number indirectly imposes a service charge.

Does anybody disagree?

Noting comments from members in other threads, I had anticipated some disagreement. I will therefore take the point a little further.

I see a critical difference between a service fee levied, properly or otherwise, for use of public services, as against the money raised through general taxation to fund them.

Where public bodies presently benefit improperly from subsidy through use of revenue sharing numbers this is a cost saving to the taxpayers that fund these bodies. Whilst pressing the need to procure telephone services at the best possible price, I campaign for this subsidy to be foregone so that taxpayers meet the full, probably increased, cost of providing public services.

Does anyone disagree?

An excellent example of the counter argument is found in the following quote:


Dave wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 12:24am:

Source: Humberside Police Authority (please view the original to see the following heavily, but fairly, edited extract in context - SCV) Quote: The question of using a 0300 number was investigated, but the cost to the force was excessive. This would have meant fewer resources or less Bobbies so you could have a cheaper phone call. The local non-emergency numbers are paid for locally not nationally like 999. If you are with BT then 0845 numbers are free now as part of your call package.

For the many BT customers who do not have the "Anytime" package, then 0845 numbers are cheaper to call than 0300 when they are not "free of a call charge".

For those not with BT, 0300 would however be a "cheaper phone call".

But what about the cost to the Police - "fewer resources", "less Bobbies" or an increase in the precept on local Council Tax bills?

I hope that Humberside Police is spending all of its money wisely, regardless of what telephone number it uses, and that it always gets the best rates possible for its telephone services. Losing the benefit of revenue share would inevitably cause it to incur higher costs.

I argue that these costs should be met (in effect) by Council Tax payers rather than callers to the Police. I recognise that this is difficult to achieve in the context of a fixed budget, but that is the essential point of principle. (If the increased cost of the telephone service is paid for by making "savings" elsewhere, then Council Tax payers are still paying for it, rather than paying for something else.)

Does anyone disagree?

One only has to quote the examples of the other UK police forces which have already adopted 03 numbers (I am delighted to say, led by my own, Essex Police).  If they can justify (or perhaps accept would be a better word) the cost, Humberside could too.

BTW, I believe the Association of Chief Police Officers has recommended forces change to 03 numbers for non-emergency calls.

Heinz wrote on Feb 25^th, 2010 at 7:49am:

One only has to quote the examples of the other UK police forces which have already adopted 03 numbers (I am delighted to say, led by my own, Essex Police).  If they can justify (or perhaps accept would be a better word) the cost, Humberside could too.

Thanks for the response, it helps to raise the issue about some public services being under the control of local people.

I too am proud that some of my Council Tax is used to properly fund the non-emergency number used by my local Police (the Met).

Is it not for "the people of Humberside" (although few would be happy to be so described) to determine that they are unhappy with the cost-saving measure that their Police force has adopted, i.e. use of a 0845 number?

I say that they should be at least urged to accept that this is improper, and perhaps even denied the right to make their own decision on this matter.

Some may however think that they should not be dictated to by ACPO, the national government or campaigners like ourselves. This is the view taken by the Home Office; indeed we have a similar situation in other cases where control of public services rests locally. This is to some degree relevant in the case of the NHS, which is funded nationally, but managed locally.