Mobile Phones (Hansard, 19 January 1996)

§ Mr. Arbuthnot

[holding answers 17 January 1996]: My Department has an enabling arrangement with Motorola Telco to provide mobile and car phones. A number of our agencies in the UK make use of this enabling arrangement which runs from 1 October 1994 to 30 November 1996. A total of 554 phones has been supplied via this arrangement. The total cost to public funds, which would include rental and call charges, is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

My Department is not liable to cancellation charges under its enabling arrangement if the contract for an individual phone is cancelled after 12 months. The minimum contract period is twelve months. No figures are held centrally for the number of cancellations and this information could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

My Department's enabling arrangement with Motorola Telco was awarded after a public competition under EC rules during 1994 which included Hutchison Ltd. and Vodaphone Ltd. A fresh public competition under EC rules is underway for a new enabling arrangement to take effect from 1 December 1996.

847W

Where these matters fall to the chief executives of my Department's agencies, I have asked the chief executives to write to the hon. Member.

Letter from J. R. Drew to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 January 1996: I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about mobile phones and car phones in Defence agencies. The Army Base Repair Organisation (ABRO), an agency with some 3,300 staff spread over 20 sites throughout the UK, currently has agreements covering the use of 23 mobile phones. The majority of the phones were procured using the rates centrally negotiated with Motorola Ltd. by the MOD Information and Communications Services. Some ABRO workshops have sought to obtain value for money by using their local purchase authority to negotiate their own rates. One took advantage of preferential rates already negotiated by other MOD users, single tender action was taken by another and one ran a competition involving the Mobile Phone Centre, Colchester, Mercury, Vodaphone and the winners, Securicor Cellular Services. A summary of the arrangements within ABRO is provided on the attached sheet. The agreements cover a variety of hardware and tariffs, depending on the individual requirements of each part of the business. Total costs only have been provided in order to avoid breaching commercial confidences with the individual suppliers. None of the contracts are for fixed periods and no costs have been incurred as result of withdrawing from contracts. I hope that this is helpful.

Army base repair organisation: mobile phone agreements
Number of phones	Agreement with	Cost of purchase and connection (VAT exc.)	Rental costs to date in FY 1995–96 (VAT exc.)
16	Motorola Ltd. through MOD Information and Communication Services	£2,2645	£2,535
5	Motorola Ltd.—locally negotiated	£2,2645	£2,535
1	BT Mobile—locally negotiated	£2,2645	£2,535
1	Securicor Cellular Services—locally negotiated	£2,2645	£2,535

Letter from Kevin Goad to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 January 1996: I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the use of mobile telephones as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency (ABSDA). I confirm that within UK all mobile telephones owned by ABSDA have been purchased under central MoD arrangements negotiated by Director General Information and Communication Services (DGICS). I am sure that Directorate will be responding to your question with regard to that contract. To address specially, the points you raise: First, in answer to your enquiry about the provision of mobile telephones, ABSDA currently has 13 units, purchased under the central MoD agreement, with Motorola Telecommunications. A further 15 telephones were purchased locally in Germany (for use by staff in the ABSDA depots in Germany) through Headquarters United Kingdom Support Command (Germany) as the UK central agreement does not cover telephone equipments that are compatible with the German telecommunications system. As with the UK purchases, however, ABSDA was not involved with the tendering process. The cost to ABSDA of these agreements is:

a. 13 Mobile phones in UK purchased from Motorola Telecommunications annual charges: £5100 per annum
b. 15 Mobile phones purchased in Germany from Hutchinson Mobilfunk: £4310 per annum

848W Secondly, regarding your point about the cost of withdrawal from contracts. As we have not withdrawn from any of our contracts to date, no costs have been incurred. I hope that this reply answers your questions. If you require further clarification or information please come back to me.

Letter from Danny Thomas to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 January 1996: You asked the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures were used by his Department in awarding contracts for the supply of mobile and car phones to his Department and its executive agencies; and which companies were involved in tendering for these contracts. I am replying on behalf of the Chief Executive of the Defence Accounts Agency who is away at present. All contracts for the provision of mobile phones used by the Defence Accounts Agency were negotiated centrally within the Ministry of Defence and I understand that these will be covered in the reply from the Minister of State for Defence Procurement.

Letter from Danny Thomas to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 January 1996: You asked the Secretary of State for Defence what costs have been incurred to his Department and executive agencies as a result of withdrawing from contracts under which mobile phones are provided. I am replying on behalf of the Chief Executive of the Defence Accounts Agency who is away at present. The Defence Accounts Agency has not incurred any charges as a result of cancelling any contract or agreement with a mobile phone supplier. But all contracts for the provision of mobile phones used by the Defence Accounts Agency were negotiated centrally within the Ministry of Defence and I understand that these will be covered in the reply from the Minister of State for Defence Procurement.

Letter from Danny Thomas to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 January 1996: You asked the Secretary of State for Defence what agreements his Department and its executive agencies have with companies for the provision of mobile car phones; and if he would list the companies having these contracts, the duration of the contract, the number of phones covered by each agreement and the cost to public funds of each agreement. I am replying on behalf of the Chief Executive of the Defence Accounts Agency who is away at present. The six mobile phones held by the Defence Accounts Agency were purchased centrally within the Ministry of Defence and I understand that these will be covered in the reply from the Minister of State for Defence Procurement.

Letter from Paul Altobell to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 January 1996: I am replying to your three recent questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about mobile phones as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Analytical Services Agency. The Defence Analytical Services Agency has no agreement with any companies for the provision of mobile and car phones. The Defence Analytical Services Agency has incurred no costs as a result of withdrawing from contracts under which mobile phones are provided. The Defence Analytical Services Agency has awarded no contracts for the supply of mobile and car phones. The Agency would follow the procedures laid down by our parent Department (MoD) should such a contract arise.

Letter from Andrew Roache to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 January 1996: As Chief Executive of the Defence Animal Centre (DAC) I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence regarding what costs his Department and its executive agencies have incurred as a result of withdrawing from contracts under which mobile phones are provided; and a list of those companies concerned. 849W The DAC has no involvement with the arrangements required should it be necessary to withdraw from such a contract and therefore is not aware of the costs involved or the companies concerned. This matter is dealt with by Divisional Headquarters at York.

Letter from Andrew Roache to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 January 1996: As Chief Executive of the Defence Animal Centre (DAC), I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning what agreements his Department and its executive agencies have with companies for the provision of mobile and car phones; the list of the companies having these contracts, the duration of the contracts, the number of phones covered by each agreement and the cost to public funds of each agreement. The DAC has no involvement with agreements regarding the provision of mobile and car phones and consequently has no knowledge of the companies who have the contracts, their duration, the number of phones covered or the cost to public funds of each agreement. This matter is dealt with by Divisional Headquarters at York.

Letter from Andrew Roache to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 January 1996: As Chief Executive of the Defence Animal Centre (DAC) I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence with regard to what procedures his Department and its executive agencies use in awarding contracts for the supply of mobile and car phones to his Department and executive agencies; and the names of the companies concerned in tendering for these contracts. The DAC has no involvement with the awarding of such contracts and is not aware of the companies concerned in tendering for these contracts. This matter is dealt with by Divisional Headquarters at York.

Letter from M. J. Roycroft to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 January 1996: I am replying to your Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about mobile and car telephones, as they are used in the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency, in my capacity as its Chief Executive. This Agency currently has 5 separate agreements, all with Motorola Telecommunications Limited, covering a total of 6 telephones. Each agreement is for an initial contract period of 12 months, after which withdrawal can occur at any time without a cost penalty. The costs of each agreement vary, dependent upon the number of calls made, the date that the telephone was first taken into use and the purchase price of the equipment. For this Agency, the costs to public funds, inclusive of VAT, are as follows:

Agreement 1 (2 telephones): £3,068.28
Agreement 2 (1 telephone): £455.61
Agreement 3 (1 telephone): £1,643.67
Agreement 4 (1 telephone): £649.21
Agreement 5 (1 telephone): £892.87

To date we have not withdrawn from any mobile telephone contracts and therefore no costs have been incurred. All our mobile telephones are ordered from a contract let by MOD's Director General, Information and Communications Services, whose organisation determines the procedures for the awarding and tendering of such contracts.

Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 January 1996: I am replying on behalf of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about agreements with companies to provide mobile and car telephones, the procedures used to award initial contracts and the costs in subsequently withdrawing from these agreements. I am answering all three questions in this letter. 850W In April 1993 the Defence Research Agency (DRA) sought quotations for the provision of mobile telephones from industry in line with MOD Procurement Procedures. The following companies were invited to tender for the contract. In the event only the first four responded.

Mercury Mobile
British Telecom
Direct Mobile Communications
Vodac
Motorola
Hutchison
Cellular Communications Corp. plc

Tenders were evaluated against the published Statement of Requirements (SOR) and a 3 year enabling contract was eventually awarded to Mercury Mobile. On its formation in April 1995 DERA inherited a range of additional mobile telephone contracts and related support services from organisations joining the DRA that were already in place. These telephones had been supplied as a result of many competitive tender procurements for small numbers of telephones with the exception of a single tender to Hutchison who was the sole known supplier providing access to the Orange Network at the time of purchase. The companies listed below (but excluding Mercury Mobile and Hutchison) were invited to tender for each of these individual procurements. These existing contracts will continue for the useful life of the mobiles or until a more cost effective means of service provision is identified. In summary DERA now therefore has in place the following contracts at the costs shown:

Supplier	Number of mobiles	Purchase cost £	Running costs £
Mercury Mobile	675	198,000	424,000
British Telecom	63	—	28,000
Hutchison	26	—	11,000
Motorola	28	—	20,000
Orange	14	—	7,000
Talkland	3	—	1,000
Mobile Telecom	4	—	2,000
Peoples Phone	2	—	700
Vodafone	19	—	6,000
Uniqueair	2	—	700

Our policy is not to withdraw from contracts until any guaranteed rental period with the original supplier has expired thus ensuring there is a cost benefit for DERA in making a change. At that stage the only costs incurred for withdrawing from contracts have been for the connection charge to transfer existing mobiles from one service supplier to another. The connection charge is £45 per telephone and a total cost of £1,600 has been incurred for such changes during the last three years.I hope this is helpful.

Letter from T. McG. Brown to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 January 1996: I am replying to your three Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about mobile telephones as I am responsible for their procurement and use within my agency, the Defence Postal & Courier Services Agency (DPCSA). Taking each question in turn, the information you have requested is as follows: PQ9927G—DPCSA currently operates 47 mobile phones, the large majority of which are used by Defence Couriers and drivers of MoD Mail Service delivery vans. DPCSA operates mobile phones under three agreements. Most are supplied by Peoples Phone, but we also use a small number of phones from BT Cellphone Services and Mercury One-2-One. The agreements are not fixed term. They continue until either DPCSA or the supplier chooses to terminate 851W them. The cost to public funds is dependent on the use of each individual phone. The rates charged are those available under existing MoD contracts. PQ9928G—DPCSA has not incurred any costs as a result of withdrawing from a mobile phone contract. PQ9930G—DPCSA obtained phones from Peoples Phone after soliciting tenders from 4 companies, Peoples Phone, Vodaphone Centre, Hutchinson Telecom and Tancroft Phones. Normal MoD tendering rules applied. BT Cellphone Services and Mercury one-2-One phones were obtained under individual contracts as required. Any future requirements will be met from an MoD enabling contract established to allow MoD Agencies and other organisaitons to obtain mobile phones at preferential rates. I hope you find this information helpful.

Letter from M. G. R. Hodson to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 January 1996: I am replying to your Questions (9927G, 9928G and 9930G) to the Secretary of State for Defence, about mobile telephones, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Transport and Movements Executive Agency (DTMX). A new contract for three mobile telephones has been let through the Ministry of Defence Information and Communciations Services (MOD ICS), to Motorola. This is an existing MOD contract which is due to run out during March 1996, however, existing subscribers will not be affected. The estimated costs over a one year period are in the region of £850. DTMX cancelled an existing contract with Hutchison Telecom, at the end of a contract period, having given the required notice. The four telephones owned by DTMX will be withdrawn on 28 January and replaced by three new telephones supplied by Motorola. As I have pointed out above, DTMX used the existing MOD ICS contract and was not involved in any tendering process. I view this switch of contracts as good housekeeping, bringing as it will, a financial saving.

Letter from Keith Ellender to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 January 1996: I am replying to your Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about mobile and car phones, as these matters fall within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Disposal Sales Agency. My Agency has two agreements for the provision of mobile phones. The agreement with Hutchison covers 8 phones, costing £25 each per month plus calls, less a 10% overall discount. The agreement with Motorola covers a phone, costing £22.50 per month plus calls, less a 10% discount on calls only. Both contracts are ongoing. My Agency does not have any agreements for the provision of car phones. My Agency has not withdrawn from any contracts under which mobile phones are provided. The contracts to supply mobile phones to my Agency were awarded by the Directorate General Information and Communications Services (DGICS). They will be able to advise on what procedures were used and which companies were involved in tendering for the contracts.

Letter from G. H. Wilson to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 January 1996: I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning agreements with companies for the provision of mobile and car phones as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of this Agency. My Agency has no agreements with companies for the provision of mobile and car phones.

Letter from M. R. Pack to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 January 1996: 1. Your Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about the provision of mobile and car telephones and related contractual aspects have been referred to the Chief Executive of the 852W Hydrographic Office for reply. Unfortunately Admiral Essenhigh is, at present, absent from the Office on official duty so I am replying to you on his behalf. 2. In so far as the Hydrographic Office Defence Agency is concerned we currently possess a total of 15 mobile telephones and 2 car telephones. The phones were procured from British Telecom (2 mobile phones) and Motorola (13 mobile phones and 2 car phones). The estimated costs of procurement was £360 in respect of British Telecom and £2,300 in respect of Motorola. These phones, apart from the cost of purchase obviously incur both a line rental charge and a cost in respect of usage. It is estimated that in the current financial year (FY 95/96) the rental and usage charges will amount to £8,600; we estimate this total would be apportioned as follows:

(i) 2 x BT mobile phones—£3,500
(ii) 13 x Motorola mobile phones—£4,020
(iii) 2 x Motorola car phones-£1,080

3. In purchasing these phones the Hydrographic Office did not enter into any contractual arrangements with either British Telecom or Motorola. 4. Turning now to the questions about withdrawing from mobile phone contracts, no such contracts have been entered into by the Hydrographic Office and consequently we have not withdrawn from any contract. 5. Finally in regard to your questions about the procedures used in awarding contracts for the supply of phones, the Hydrographic Office did not enter into any form of competitive tender action. The cost of the equipment fell within local purchase arrangements. 6. I hope this information has been of assistance.

Letter from A. W. Pollard to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19th January 1996: I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence Procurement about various aspects of the hire by executive agencies of mobile and car phones. As Chief Executive this falls within my area of responsibility for the Logistic Information Systems Agency (LISA). LISA currently hires a total of 37 mobile phones. Details of the number of telephones hired from specific companies and their respective costs are attached at Annex A. No contracts are negotiated on a "fixed-period" basis. Therefore no costs have been incurred as a result of withdrawal from contracts. LISA adopts the standard procedures contained within the Director General Information and Communications Systems (DGICS) Catalogue to procure its requirements. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Annex A: LISA mobile phone hire
Serial	Hire company	Numbers hired	Cost per month £
1	4U Ltd.	6	25
2	British Telecom	1	12
		1	27
3	Peoples Phone	4	53
4	Motophone	13	15
5	Hutchinson	1	11
6	Motorola	11	22
Total	6	37	165

Letter from J. C. R. Hunt to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 January 1996: I am replying to your Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about the provision and use of mobile and car phones in the Meterological Office as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Agency. 853W I attach at Annex details of our current contracts for the provision of these services. The majority of the equipment is needed to gather observations and to maintain operational services. Since April 1995 only two contracts have been terminated. During 1994–95 five were terminated and in the previous year three. The penalty in each case has been no more than £67.50 per mobile. With the exception of a very small number of specialised equipments the Meteorological Office procures its mobile phones under a contract negotiated centrally by the DGICS organisation in the Ministry of Defence. We currently have agreements with 5 (five) companies:

Annex: Mobile phones
Hire company	Numbers hired	Cost per annum £	Total cost per annum £
BT Cellnet	10	270.00	3,700.00
Vodafone Government	6	270.00	1,620.00
Hutchison	5	270.00	1,350.00
Phones 4U	3	270.00	810.00
Motorola	59	270.00	15,930.00
Motorola	4	138.00	552.00
Motorola	2	162.00	324.00
Total			23,286.00

All contracts are for a minimum of one year.

Letter from A. J. Hoon to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 January 1996: I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence aboutcosts incurred as a result of withdrawal from mobile telephone contracts as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Military Survey Defence Agency. Military Survey has incurred no costs as a result of withdrawing from mobile telephont contracts.

Letter from A. J. Hoon to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 January 1996: I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the procedures used in the award of contracts to supply mobile telephones as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Military Survey Defence Agency. Recent purchases of mobile telephones have been made from the selection available in the catalogue issued by the central MOD authority responsible for telecommunications equipment. The catalogue is produced following a competitive process to identify the most cost-effective solutions to a range of requirements. Earlier purchases were made after locally arranged competitive tendering with a number of suppliers. A list of companies invited to tender is attached. I regret that the list may not be exhaustive as details of tendering exercises are not normally retained for longer than three years.

Military Survey Defence Agency
List of Companies invited to tender for mobile telephones

1. Alpha Mega Services
2. Axon Systems
3. British Telecom
4. Callmaster Telecommunications
5. Ford Airtime Operations
6. Hutchinson Telecom
7. Peoples Phone
8. Vodaphone

854W

Letter from A. J. Hoon to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 January 1996: I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about agreements for the provision of mobile telephones as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Military Suryey Defence Agency. Military Survey has no agreements as such with mobile telephone companies as all instruments have been purchased outright. Information regarding the contracts for telephones in use in the Agency is attached. You also asked for details of the costs involved; I regret that it is not our practice to divulge this commercially sensitive information.

Military Aurvey Defence Agency Details of Mobile Telephone Contracts
Serial	Supplier	Quantity
1.	British Telecom	2
2.	British Telecom	4
3.	British Telecom	4
4.	Callmaster Telecommunications	16
5.	Motorala¹	7
6.	Motorala¹	14
7.	Motorala¹	3
8.	Motorala¹	5
9.	Vodaphone	5
¹Procured via central MOD catalogue.

Letter from W. S. Graham to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 January 1996: 1. I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence, that sought details of procedures used bythe"NavalAircraftRepairOrganisation(NARO)"in awarding contracts for the supply of mobile and car phones as the matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the NARO. 2. A number of local companies are approached by phone for costs and the one with the best deal at the time is selected. 3. Only 2 companies have been used to date: Hutchison telecom and The People Phone Company.

Letter from W. S. Graham to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 January 1996: 1. I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence, that asked for details of costs, if any, incurred by the "Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation (NARO)" as a result of withdrawing from contracts under which mobile phones have been provided as the matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the NARO. 2. No costs incurred.

Letter from A. D. Ferguson to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 18 January 1996: I am replying on behalf of the Chief Executive of the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency (NRTA) to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Decence about what agreements the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency (NRTA) has with companies for the provision of mobile and car phones; a list of those companies, the duration of the contracts, the number of phones covered by each agreement and the cost to public funds of each agreement. The details requested are as follows:

Company	Duration of contract	Number of telephones	Annual cost £
BT	12 months	4	948
Cellnet	12 months	15	1,668
Cell Phone Direct	12 months	1	201
Mercury	12 months	1	153

855W

Company	Duration of contract	Number of telephones	Annual cost £
Mercury	12 months	1	457
Talkland	12 months	7	1,914
Vodac	12 months	3	864

You will also wish to be aware that the NRTA has 80 telephones that were provided by MOD DGICS prior to Agency status at a total cost of £26456 per annum.

Letter from A. D. Ferguson to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 18 January 1996: I am replying on behalf of the Chief Executive of the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency (NRTA) to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about what procedures were used in awarding contracts for the supply of mobile and car phones to the NRTA; and asking for a list of the companies involved. The procedures used were a mixture of competitive tendering under government contracting rules or by local purchase action as appropriate. The companies involved were as follows:

BT
Cellnet
Cell Phone Direct
Mercury
Talkland
Vodac

Letter from A. D. Ferguson to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 18 January 1996: I am replying on behalf of the Chief Executive of the Naval Recruiting Agency (NRTA) to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about what costs NRTA has incurred as a result of withdrawing from contracts under which mobile phones are provided; and the companies concerned. We have withdrawn from one agreement to date, with Talkland. There was no cost penalty. None of the agreements will attract a cost on withdrawal provided the required notice is given, 30 days in the majority of cases and 3 months the remainder.

Letter from B. Raine to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 January 1996: I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence/Her Majesty's Government about mobile car phones as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of Queen Victoria School. We have had no agreement with any company to provide a mobile and car phone, nor have we awarded any contracts. Therefore, we have incurred no costs as a result of withdrawing from contracts under which mobile phones are provided nor were we involved in any procedures to award such contracts.

Letter from R. H. Kyle to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 January 1996: You asked the Secretary of State for Defence a number of questions concerning agreements and related costs of providing mobile and car telephones. I am replying as the Chief Executive of the Royal Air Force Maintenance Group Defence Agency. I understand that you will be receiving a separate reply direct from the Secretary of State covering mobile and car telephones which have been provided under departmental arrangements. This reply therefore only covers those instruments which have been obtained under delegated contractual authority. You will appreciate that my Agency comprises a number of Royal Air Force stations across the country, each of which enjoys the appropriate delegated authority in its own right. For simplicity of presentation a 856W consolidated response to your various questions has been prepared and is attached to this letter. I hope that this information is helpful. Royal Air Force Maintenance Group Defence Agency Mobile and Car Telephones

1. Companies from which mobile and car telephones in use have been obtained:

British Telecom
Challenger Communications Ltd.
Hutchison Telecommunications
People's Phone
Roadphone
Securicor

2. Challenger Communications Ltd. has provided 4 mobile telephones on a short term, contract for a specific operational requirement. All other telephones, which have been purchased, involve running contracts and related costs for line rental.
3. The total number of telephones concerned is 56. The total of instrument purchase costs is £724.38 (inc. VAT). The total of monthly rental costs is £1,205.29 (inc. VAT).
4. No costs have been incurred as a result of withdrawing from contracts.
5. Where mobile telephones have been obtained under delegated contractual authorities the standard published Royal Air Force and Ministry of Defence procedures have been followed.
6. The following companies have been involved in tendering:

British Telecom
Challenger Communications Ltd.
Co-Channel Elec Ltd.
Hutchison Telecommunications
K - Phones
LEBA Engineering
Mercury Telecommunications
People's Phone
Roadphone
Securicor

Letter from P. C. Ayee to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 January 1996: I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the costs that have been incurred as a result of withdrawing from contracts under which mobile phones are provided, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Royal Air Force Signals Engineering Establishment Defence Agency. No costs have been incurred by the Agency as the result of withdrawing from contracts under which mobile phones have been provided

Letter from P. C. Ayee to Mr. Brian Dohohoe, dated 19 January 1996: I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the agreements his Department and its Executive Agencies have with companies for the provision of mobile and car phones, the companies having those contracts, the duration of the contracts, the number of phones covered by each agreement and the cost to public funds of each agreement, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Royal Air Force Signals Engineering Establishment Defence Agency. This Agency has annual rental agreements with Hutchinson Telecom for 4 mobile phones at a cost of £3600 per annum and Peoples Phone Company for 18 phones at a cost of £5040 per annum. All the contracts are of one year's duration with an option of cessation after 3 months notice.

857W

Letter from P. C. Ayee to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 January 1996: I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the procedures were used in awarding contracts for the supply of mobile and car phones, and what companies were involved in tendering for those contracts, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Royal Air Force signals Engineering Establishment Defence Agency. Standard Ministry of Defence procedures for the procurement of mobile phones were used. The companies involved in tendering for the contracts were British Telecom, Hutchinson Telecom and The Peoples' Phone Company.

Letter from A. A. Nicholson to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 January 1996: I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the procedures used in awarding contracts for the supply of mobile and car phones. The contracts to supply mobile phones to the Royal Air Force Training Group Defence Agency are dealt with centrally within the Ministry of Defence. I am sending a copy of this letter to the Agency's owner, the Air Officer Commanding-in-chief Personnel and Training Command.

Letter from I. S. Mitchelson to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 January 1996: I am replying to your questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about provision of mobile and car phones in so far as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of Service Children's Schools (North West Europe) Agency. Service Children's Schools (NWE) currently operates 7 mobile phones. These were procured on our behalf by Headquarters United Kingdom Support Command (Germany), who are responsible for the provision of telecommunications equipment and related services within British Forces Germany. This is the normal procedure, and for the Agency to seek to set up separate arrangements for such limited requirements would not make any real sense. This of course means the Agency has not withdrawn from any mobile or car phone contracts. I understand that the Department will cover the procurement arrangements.

858W

Letter from J. R. Prince to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 January 1996: I am replying to your questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about the use of mobile and car phones, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Army Technical Support Agency (ATSA). The information you have requested is set out below (please note that it relates to mobile phones only; ATSA does not possess any car phones):

Company	Number of phones
Callmaster	5
Motorola	23
Unique Air	9
Hutchinson Telecom	3
Total	40

The cost of the phones amounted to £3,100, and the estimated annual cost, including line rental, calls and VAT is £13,700. Lines are rented from BT, Motorola, Unique Air and Hutchinson Telecom.The majority of the phones were purchased through existing Departmental enabling agreements, which were approved only after competitive tendering had been undertaken. Those agreements that have been made within the last 12 months require 1 years notice to terminate; those more than 12 months old require 90 days notice. One agreement has been terminated, with Unique Air, incurring a charge of £30.