Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Burt of Solihull (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 24 October 2006. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Call Centre Activity.


Call Centre Activity

I echo all the points that the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) has made, and I congratulate him on bringing this important debate to Parliament today. The debate is particularly important given that Norwich Union, which is close to the hon. Gentleman’s heart, has shed 4,000 jobs. While I was doing some research for this debate, I was intrigued to discover that on 24 September The Observer considered whether overseas sourcing of call centres resulted in a cheaper product for the customer—the justification that many organisations such as Norwich Union, or Aviva as it is now known, produce. Interestingly, The Observer discovered that on car insurance, Norwich Union was three times more expensive than the cheapest company, Direct Line, which has all its call centres in the United Kingdom. It is questionable whether cost savings translate into better customer service. The hon. Gentleman touched on the effect on the economy. I am concerned about the effects on women, because call centres can offer flexible and part-time work. However, there have also been repercussions for their male counterparts, who tend to predominate in backroom business processing. I was also interested to discover that the Department for Trade and Industry has estimated that 200,000 extra jobs will be created in call centres in the next three years, which is somewhat contradictory to the doom and gloom that we have heard about. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister how that will translate in the United Kingdom’s economy.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
450 c354-5WH 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
Subjects
Data protection Companies Employment India Privacy Redundancy Low pay Norwich Regulation Telephone services Norwich Union Labour market
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk