House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 20 Nov 2007 (pt 0039)

NHS: Telephone Services
Mr. Graham Stuart: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from patient groups on the use of 0844 revenue-sharing telephone numbers; and if he will make a statement. [162853]

Mr. Bradshaw: We do not keep records on the number of inquiries about 084 numbers we receive from patient groups. Since January 2007, we have received 100 letters on the subject of 0844 telephone numbers.

House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 21 Nov 2007 (pt 0015)

Police Service of Northern Ireland: Telephone Services
Lady Hermon: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce a geographical telephone number for the Police Service of Northern Ireland's non-emergency calls. [165135]

Paul Goggins: 0845 600 8000 is the primary number for all non-emergency services. This provides a single, contact number regardless of the caller's location. The calls are routed automatically to the most appropriate answer-point within the PSNI. This provides an effective response for non-emergency calls and there are no current plans to introduce additional geographic telephone numbers.

Lady Hermon: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people called the Police Service of Northern Ireland's non-emergency telephone number in each of the past 12 months for which figures are available; and how much revenue was generated by the use of this number over the same period. [165136]

Paul Goggins: The number of calls made to the Police Service of Northern Ireland's non-geographic telephone number for non-emergency calls, “0845 600 8000”, in each of the last 12 months is shown in the following table.

Month Number of calls to 0845 600 8000
2006
 
November
13,128

December
11,913

 
2007
 
January
12,874

February
12,292

March
13,319

April
13,370

May
14,635

June
16,396

July
16,210

August
16,800


21 Nov 2007 : Column 910W
September
16,064

October
16,632

21 Nov 2007 : Column 910W—continued



The PSNI contributes to the cost of calls made to this number and receives no revenue as a consequence of the use of this number.

Lady Hermon: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the number of people deterred from calling the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s non-emergency telephone number on account of the cost of calls. [165137]

Paul Goggins: It is important to make a distinction between emergency and non-emergency calls in order for incidents to be prioritised properly. There has been good uptake of the 0845 600 8000 non-emergency telephone number line; for example last month 16,632 members of the public used the service.

The levels of usage do not indicate that people are being deterred from making calls.

kk wrote on Nov 24^th, 2007 at 12:04am:

We need to be a little careful here. The price of a “local call” varies. It may be zero (if already covered by an inclusive package) or much more than 3.25p/min from a mobile.

The actual fact is that every known telephone tariff charges more for a call to a 0844 number than for a “local call”, so the point stands.

Quote:

When we have stopped laughing at the nonsensical concept of a health service we need to take this more seriously.

Decisions about whether GPs can fund their services by collecting money from patients (through the revenue share on 0844 numbers), i.e. whether the NHS is “free at the point of need”, cannot vary from one PCT area to another, in what would be seen as a "postcode lottery".

PCTs are neither equipped, nor sufficiently accountable, to take political decisions of this magnitude.


Decisions about whether it is worthwhile to invest taxpayer’s money in an advanced surgery telephone system, as against other potential uses for the local budget allocation of NHS funds, must be made locally. The option to duck the difficult duty to set priorities for expenditure, by funding it from payments made by patients, should not be (is not) available.

David

kk wrote on Nov 25^th, 2007 at 10:22am:

We agree. The point I make to Mr Bradshaw and others is not about the cost, but the principle of revenue sharing. That is both simple and indefensible for NHS contractors, who may not receive remuneration from patients (at any level), no matter how it is delivered or distributed.

NHS GPs may not fund their services using money collected from patients.

Further discussion is only necessary to address side issues that may be raised in an attempt to obfuscate the matter. That is what follows.

---

Whilst one may pick out an illustrative example of the cost difference, a single example (BT Together Option 1 in the daytime, ignoring the call connection charge, at the rates currently being applied) does not provide me with sufficient weight for the necessary argument on a point of principle.

“Revenue sharing” in the context of delivery of NHS services is simply unacceptable, without going any further. It is perhaps inevitable (barring a few perverse exceptions) that a call where some of the revenue is shared will cost more than one where it is not. We may refer to the latter as a "local call".

The two approaches will therefore generally hit the same point, however reliance on a single current example is dangerous. I focus particularly on GPs using 0844 revenue sharing numbers to avoid a problem that some could introduce - what about NHS GPs using 0845 revenue sharing numbers (a point that is best not discussed at length)?



As stated in my previous posting, a clear position may be drawn from Mr Bradshaw’s statement. We have however seen many more GPs take up 0844 numbers since the “guidance” was issued. This action by the DH is thereby shown to have been ineffective.

In total, the written answer is far from clear as it allows many opportunities to those who may wish to deny the simple interpretation.

It refers to the “local national health service”, a far from simple concept to deal with in these times when partial devolution is used as means of perpetual buck-passing. It refers only to “guidance”, not direction. It uses a technically meaningless term - “local call”, which is not found on most current telephone tariffs.

Furthermore, the guidance was not issued to the telephone companies who levy the charges, but to PCTs and practices, who can neither control them nor be expected to be fully aware of what they are. Charges vary between the many options offered by the many providers and also change over time (e.g. "local rate" was effectively abolished in 2004). We also know that PCTs and practices are susceptible to misleading advice on such matters from those who may claim expertise in this field.

I have found from long experience that most of one’s efforts in campaigning are used in dealing with such nonesense. That is why I have to address the detail of this guidance, however I do not focus on it.



When calling their NHS GP, unlike most other service providers, callers may not incur any cost that is passed on through revenue sharing (however great or small). My focus for this particular campaign is therefore on “revenue sharing”, because it is contrary to the principle frequently repeated by Ben Bradshaw’s ministerial boss, the Secretary of State Alan Johnson: “the NHS is free at the point of need”. For those who wish to take the trouble to go into even more detail, it is a breach of the terms of clause 483 of the GMS contract.

It is this fundamental principle of the NHS that is at issue here. There are many related issues about the cost of telephone calls that are worthy of attention and need to be addressed in different ways. I hope that this case is seen as being so clear as to demand action. We may hope that such action will be helpful with other cases that are not quite so clear, nor so demanding of attention.

The wording of ministerial questions and the new EDM are starting to move away from the point of illustrative BT call charges to pick up on the underlying issue, so let us hope that we are heading for a proper resolution, insofar as this may be delivered in parliament.

---

A simple and enforceable direction from the Department of Health that all telephone numbers used to access NHS GP services must begin with 01, 02 or 03 would ensure compliance with the GMS contract.

The same rule could be applied, as a matter of new policy rather than compliance with an existing contract, to the rest of the NHS. Other Departments could issue similar directions to cover all public services that do not advertise a fee for services delivered by telephone.

David

Order Book Part 1

Questions for Oral or Written Answer
beginning on Thursday 29 November 2007
(the 'Questions Book')

Part 1: Written Questions for Answer on
Thursday 29 November 2007

Mr Andrew Dismore (Hendon): To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, for what reasons the helpline number 0845 302 1444 for enquiring about child benefit database concerns is a premium rate line; if he will ensure that people are able to call the helpline at local tariff rates; and if he will make a statement.
(169726)

House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 04 Dec 2007 (pt 0029)

Child Benefit: Databases

Mr. Dismore: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons the helpline number 0845 302 1444 for enquiring about child benefit database concerns is a premium rate line; if he will ensure that people are able to call the helpline at local tariff rates; and if he will make a statement. [169726]

Jane Kennedy: This is not a premium rate line. HMRC policy is to operate customer facing helplines using an 0845 prefix rather than premium rate lines. The cost of calls to 0845 and other non geographic numbers is dependent on several factors. Calls are charged to the customer based on the tariff arrangements they have with their service provider, the device they use for the call and the location from which they call.

Heinz wrote on Dec 6^th, 2007 at 11:42am:

Yes indeed. Mr Dismore is one of those being subjected to my parliamentary education programme by regular briefings. This has achieved only modest success, as I have to congratulate and encourage students who share our objectives, as well as criticising them.


There was another example yesterday, where the differential costs of calling 0845 numbers from landlines was regrettably overstated. This occurred during some interesting discussion on the topic of 0845 helplines (primarily DWP) during a debate on Benefit Simplification.

The point was raised by Danny Alexander (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, Liberal Democrat) and (over-)endorsed by Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West, Labour). Link to Hansard

Reference is made to weakness and misunderstanding in paragraph 15 of the Government’s response to the Select Committee Report that is being debated. Link to Response

In winding up the debate, there was a response to the comments made, from the Minister - Caroline Flint (Minister of State (Employment and Welfare Reform)). Link to Hansard

Ms Flint, who may understand what she is saying, confirms the following offer:

“We are encouraging our staff to make the point that they can ring people back”.


The department should also be making this clear in all its literature; however this does not address the problem of the cost incurred whilst waiting to speak to an agent. This suggests that DWP should be deploying using the widely used call centre technology that allows callers to request an automatic return call rather than waiting in a queue.

Let us hope that the cost of return calls will help to encourage an early move to 03 numbers.

David

Questions for Oral or Written Answer
beginning on Tuesday 11 December 2007
(the 'Questions Book')

Part 1: Written Questions for Answer on
Tuesday 11 December 2007

47
N  Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth & Camborne): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies for which his Department is responsible provide a customer contact service; and which of these are 0800 or 0845 numbers.