Yes I agree with Dave. I can assure you that the sky is green. It doesn't make it a fact and it is wrong.

When specifically asked about mobiles she said:

"It is absolutely clear that there is no distinction between landlines, mobiles or payphones. The directions are very clear that patients should not expect to be charged any more. "

How clearer does anyone want it. And they do cost more.

Keith wrote on Jul 13^th, 2011 at 3:01pm:

According to this list, Surrey PCT has 20 surgeries with 084 numbers!  

The Department of Health has now made it absolutely clear from the floor of the House of Commons that the ban applies to all numbers that cost more than the cost of an equivalent call to a geographic number, whether called from a landline, mobile or payphone.

This may represent news to some PCTs, who will have received assurances from their practices such as that widely circulated, a copy of which is published here -
Quote:

Up until now the Department of Health has never taken the trouble to point out that any reference to the cost of calling "from a fixed line" was not as significant as suggested by the preceding quotation. (This comment was with reference to some telephone call service providers, not system providers such as NEG, anyway). It has never confirmed its support for any particular system, nor indeed of any system being funded by use of a revenue sharing number. It has always stuck to the terms of the regulations as drafted, making it plain that it is these terms which PCTs are expected to enforce on GPs.


It is widely acknowledged that the cost of calling 084 numbers from a mobile is greater than that of calling geographic numbers. A variety of reasons have been advanced to suggest that this fact does not make use of 084 numbers fall outside the terms of the regulations. This argument is now firmly quashed by referring to the answer given on Tuesday.

In respect of payphones, there can be no dispute whatsoever.



There is some doubt about whether Andrew Love received the assurance sought by asking -
Quote:

The recording of the exchanges shows that the Minister began her response with the single word sentence "Yes." This (and the phrase which followed) is commonly used in parliament to acknowledge a well made point before responding to it, and was therefore excluded from the Official Record (Hansard). In response to a direct closed question however it may fairly be taken as an affirmative reply.

Efforts to ensure that the Department writes to all PCT Chief Executives, regardless of whether or not such an assurance was given, are underway. Members may wish to press their own MP to join in these efforts.


PCTs have a degree of autonomy and the Department has long been reluctant to "micro-manage" their activities. They do however all lean very heavily on what they understand to be the position of the DH, especially if this helps them avoid having to take difficult action. A clear statement, in the form of a letter, simply repeating what was said in the house, would make it far more difficult for them to avoid taking action against GPs in breach.

The relationship between the Department of Health and NHS bodies is complex and undergoing change. Suffice to say that one may be happily surprised by the strength and clarity of the comments made on Tuesday! There are other ways of ensuring that PCTs comply with their duties, rather than seeking for the DH to intervene.

Whether or not the DH writes to PCTs, they can also be pressured by patients, MPs and local media - all of whom now have a clear reference in Hansard to indicate that they may be contradicting the explicit directions of the Government, as confirmed to the Parliament to which it is accountable. There are further formal options.

Barbara wrote on Jul 14^th, 2011 at 12:08pm:

I share Barbara's concern and suggest that we should collectively accept some principles of good practice when choosing where to add a comment.

It is inevitable that related points will be raised in discussion - we need not feel excessively bound by the topic of the thread, although we should respect it.

Once a separate matter has turned into a discussion on that point alone, I would suggest that a new thread be started (or an existing thread be re-opened) with a forward linking posting added to the thread from which the discussion diverged. Earlier comments from the other thread where the point was raised could be quoted in the thread relevant to the "break -off" topic.

From a quick inspection of the general area to which this thread is central, I believe that we have reasonably well defined streams in which to make comments. News announcements without comment, which for me represent too large a proportion of the material in this "discussion" forum (although I know that others would disagree) may well apply to more than one thread. Given that the threads are properly focussed on specific issues, I see no reason why a brief "cross reference" posting could not be made in those threads of secondary relevance, whilst the main comment is made in the most appropriate thread.

I believe that most members are sufficiently competent with yabb syntax to handle a "quote". Some well written tips on how to prepare a "cross reference / link" posting would perhaps be helpful.


My previous posting to this thread (example of cross reference posting) highlighted one case where I believe that thread discipline has broken down. The other notable case (in which I am as guilty as anyone else) is an extensive discussion of car parking charges in a thread about Hospitals using 0844 numbers.

(I acknowledge that this contribution could perhaps have been best placed in the "Site related" section of the forum. On balance I believe that it has sufficient particular relevance to the topic covered in this thread to remain here. Should the discussion open up to cover wider points, then I would take a different view.)

Dave wrote on Jul 15^th, 2011 at 12:04am:

I have indeed now removed all references to the comments in what I saw as being the wrong thread from my earlier posting

I quote below the point I made about the fact that Tuesday's announcement does not itself mean that Surgeries are saying No to 0844. It no longer belongs in the earlier posting, but I want it retained in the discussion.

Quote:

---

I have also removed the references to the action that was being taken with respect to consideration of amendment to the Official Record. This has now been swiftly resolved. I expect to be to shortly posting again including quotations from an accurate (updated) Hansard.

Purely for the sake of an historical record - my original comment said:
Quote:

The Minister has confirmed that there was no commitment made to write to PCTs, so the omission of the courtesy preamble stands. This does not mean that pressure from MPs and other sources may not cause the Department to write to PCTs; it may choose to do so itself. All that is missing is the "assurance" that was sought.

For news on the other point - watch this space, with an eye on the last two words of the first sentence of the penultimate line of this posting. I am not exactly sure when the on-line Hansard source will be changed and if this correction will be reflected on TheyWorkForYou. It will be splendid to be able to quote the full exchanges from Hansard without any fear of confusion being re-introduced.

One of the main suppliers of GP phone systems with 084 numbers is Network Europe Group (NEG) with its Surgery Line system. It is now part of Daisy Group and its founder and chief executive, Matthew Riley, will be making his TV debut this evening during the final of The Apprentice which starts at 21:00 on BBC One. He is one of people Lord Sugar has called upon to grill the final four candidates.

BBC News: Nelson businessman Matthew Riley grills Apprentice finalists
Lancashire Telegraph: Nelson entrepreneur to interview Apprentice finalists tonight

speedy wrote on Jul 18^th, 2011 at 4:55am:

It works for me in Firefox but not Internet Explorer 8 which says "We're sorry. The publishing options given are not valid. Please check the options and try again."

loddon wrote on May 25^th, 2011 at 11:32pm:

Further to this article, another has been published:

Anger as surgery keeps premium rate number


Local campaigners point out that the ban applies to all modes of telecommunications, yet the PCT claims it has been told by the DH that the only comparison is the "local BT rate".