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?

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

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

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?

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

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.