Apologies if the sequence of the thread is getting a little messy due to a time lag in responding to points addressed to myself.
bbb_uk wrote on Aug 20
th, 2007 at 5:06pm:
I believe this to be true.
Thanks for the direct answer.
If it is to be relied upon in external discussion, it is imperative that this position may be sustained. Otherwise it must be qualified to avoid undermining an otherwise valid dependent argument.
bbb_uk wrote on Aug 20
th, 2007 at 5:06pm:
Does your thinking of this apply to all governement departments or just specific/selective ones? For example, the DVLA and passport office that are known to receive millions in revenue, I find unacceptable especially as we already pay a fortune for our driving license (including changes, etc) and passports are so expensive as well and keep rising significantly on a regular basis (well it has recently).
I will be selective in putting revenue taken by the Passport Agency in a quite separate category. There is a major political issue behind this, so matters of pricing fall away into insignificance. If the issue of the national ID database is settled (either way) on the basis of arguments about what consumers are prepared to pay for a "passport", with this subsidised through fees paid by commercial organisations able to access the database, then some of us will be deeply disappointed. Please keep me well away from this issue.
With that said, I refer not just to central government departments, but all public bodies, including agencies (departmental and non-departmental), national and regional governments and their agencies as well as local government and the others which any citizenship student could list for you. I would also include services directly commissioned by those bodies (e.g. NHS GPs) where control over charges to users is, or should be, covered in the terms of the contract.
(Not very selective).
The level of revenue taken in charges by any one body and the propriety of the varying levels of contribution made are valid topics for political discussion with reference to that body. Where telephone call revenue is a significant part of the total, it may be difficult to separate this out as a separate issue.
There may however be cases where the charges are generally so high that the amount earned from telephone calls could be dismissed as being relatively insignificant. The DVLA could be an example of this.
In general I see a two-stage process. Firstly, I see it as vital that users of services provided by public bodies are aware of what they are paying to the provider for the service. The general failure to do this in respect of charges raised through telephone charges must be corrected.
We know the level of vehicle excise duty that we have to pay. We are told that there is a £2.50 surcharge for renewing on a credit card. We are not told what we are being charged by the DVLA for renewing it by telephone.
Once the level of charges is in the open then stage two may take place - a debate about the level and propriety of each and every element of the charge.
As campaigners on the issue of telephone charges we may all be together on the first of these. There may also be the possibility of some co-ordinated action across the various bodies involved, although I am not aware of any simple means by which this could be "ordered".
The political issues raised at the second stage belong elsewhere.
David