Dear Ms Stubbings

I wish to most strongly complain and disagree with the statement that is currently displayed on the PCT web site with regard to GP Surgery telephone systems, dated 11 September 2007 and found at http://www.glospct.nhs.uk/content/news/2007/september/news110907.html.

In this statement, the comment is made that "Calls to 0844 numbers from landlines cost the same as a BT standard local rate charge and are not premium rate lines as some have reported."

This is totally incorrect and it is an absolute deleriction of your duty as a public servant to allow it to be displayed. It is very well known and accepted that the 0844 numbering range is a 'revenue sharing premium rate' range. 0844 numbers are NEVER included in the total call packages of either landline or mobile calls that most subscribers have today, and must always be paid for separately. In addition, since there is no longer any such charge as a "BT standard local rate ", it is totally meaningless to make such a comparison. For the very small number of subscribers who still pay a per call rate (which is the same for a call to any geographic location with a 01 or 02 number, regardless of distance), a call to 0844 is of the order of 2p per minute more expensive. That is very clearly a ' premium' over 'normal' landline call rates. For mobile phones, the situation is even worse. Most operators charge between 35p and 40p per minute for a call to a 0844 number - a very considerable premium over 'normal' 01-02 call rates. The concept of revenue sharing makes the situation even worse. If the surgery is busy, and the caller is forced to wait and listen to some 'soothing' music, I'm sure they are suitably impressed to know they are paying between 5p and 40p per minute for the privilege. Indeed, there is now every suggestion that the surgery will be encouraged to put the caller on hold, since they are then getting a (hidden) revenue stream, reputed to be of the order of 2p per minute, from the call.

There is absolutely no reason why this situation should continue. If GPs have exercised a "choice" to fund new telephone systems by collecting money from patients, rather than paying for them in the proper manner, then by your tacit support of this decision, you are approving, or even encouraging, a breach of the principle that NHS services are "free at the point of need". It is the telephone system that provides the improved service, not the telephone number used to access it - and exactly the same facilities could be provided with a normal landline number (01 or 02) or one of the new 03 numbers that have recently been introduced by Ofcom. (They are charged in exactly the same way as 01 and 02, and must be included in call packages which means that for most subscribers, the incremental cost of a call to their surgery is zero.)

I cannot understand why a public body such as the PCT would see the need to deliberately publish information that is known to be false and meaningless. It appears that it is a foolish and ineffective attempt to conceal the true and widely understood state of affairs. The time when ill-informed public servants can get away with publishing nonsense such as that seen in your statement has long passed. This is a deliberate attempt at obfuscation, and I demand that you both retract the false information and publish a clear and unambiguous apology.

I look forward to an early and positive reply from you.

Yours sincerely