Ministerial Corrections

Monday 2nd September 2013 Ministerial Corrections

Monday 2 September 2013

Business Services Association

Monday 2nd September 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Alison Seabeck]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what occasions (a) he, (b) Ministers and (c) officials in his Department have met representatives of the Business Services Association.

[Official Report, 18 July 2013, Vol. 566, c. 952W.]

Letter of correction from Andrew Murrison:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) on 18 July 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Dr Murrison]

We have no records of any meetings between the Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), or Ministers and representatives of the Business Services Association.

We are not aware of any officials meeting with representatives of the Business Services Association but a definitive answer could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

The correct answer should have been:

[Dr Murrison]

The following table lists the meetings the Business Services Association (staff or members or both) has held with MOD Ministers and officials this year:

Mobile Phones

Monday 2nd September 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Pamela Nash]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which company holds the largest contract to provide mobile telephony services to his Department; how much was paid under the contract in the last year for which figures are available; how many individual services are covered by the contract; when the contract was awarded; when the contract will next be renewed; and for how long.

[Official Report, 20 May 2013, Vol. 563, c. 499W.]

Letter of correction from Philip Dunne:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) on 20 May 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Dunne]

[holding answer 16 May 2013]: The majority of mobile telephones supplied to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) are provided by Vodafone through an enabling arrangement through the Defence Fixed Telecommunications Service (DFTS) contract with British Telecom. The MOD paid a total of £5.3 million (including VAT) for mobile services in financial year 2012-13.

A variety of services are covered by the Vodafone contract but at the simplest level they can be divided in to voice accounts and data accounts. At the end of March 2013 there were 34,924 voice accounts and 8,517 data accounts.

The Vodafone element of the DFTS contract was renewed following competitive processes in 2011 and is due to expire in 2015. Renewal of this contract is currently an element of a wider re-procurement activity for Defence Core Network Services.

The correct answer should have been:

[Mr Dunne]

[holding answer 16 May 2013]: The majority of mobile telephones supplied to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) are provided by Vodafone through an enabling arrangement through the Defence Fixed Telecommunications Service (DFTS) contract with British Telecom. The MOD paid a total of £5.9 million (including VAT) for mobile services in financial year 2012-13.

A variety of services are covered by the Vodafone contract but at the simplest level they can be divided in to voice accounts and data accounts. At the end of March 2013 there were 34,924 voice accounts and 8,517 data accounts.

The Vodafone element of the DFTS contract was renewed following competitive processes in 2011 and is due to expire in 2015. Renewal of this contract is currently an element of a wider re-procurement activity for Defence Core Network Services.

Magistrates' Courts: Salford

Monday 2nd September 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Mr Slaughter]

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how the theft of a network server from Salford magistrates' court in January 2012 took place; who stole the server; what the value of the server was; how it was recovered; what action has been taken against the thief; what documents were on the server; whether such documents (a) related to court staff, defendants, victims or witnesses and (b) included personal or confidential matters or matters related to evidence; what steps have been taken to inform those affected; for what reasons he believes that the information has not been accessed; for what reasons the theft was not reported to the police and the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) until June 2012; when he expects the ICO to report; and if he will make a statement.

[Official Report, 18 July 2013, Vol. 566, c. 829W.]

Letter of correction from Helen Grant:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) on 18 July 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mrs Grant]

The theft of a network server from Salford magistrates court occurred during the IT decommissioning process undertaken by contractors during the closure of the court. Following a police investigation, there was insufficient evidence to identify who stole the server and secure a conviction and no charges were brought. The estimated value of the server was £1,200.

The theft came to light on 3 May 2012 when the server was put up for sale on eBay still bearing the contractor's logo/asset tag. Arrangements were made by the contractor to recover the server on 9 May 2012. Once the facts were established, the incident was reported to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) on 14 June 2013.

Files recovered from non user-accessible areas of the server contained personal and sensitive data, including court documents and e mails, but a detailed forensic analysis and audit did not identify any access to the files during the time the server was not under the control of MOJ and therefore no action has been taken to inform those affected.

The matter is still under investigation by the ICO and we await their report.

The correct answer should have been:

[Mrs Grant]

The theft of a network server from Salford magistrates court occurred during the IT decommissioning process undertaken by contractors during the closure of the court. Following a police investigation, there was insufficient evidence to identify who stole the server and secure a conviction and no charges were brought. The estimated value of the server was £1,200.

The theft came to light on 3 May 2012 when the server was put up for sale on eBay still bearing the contractor's logo/asset tag. Arrangements were made by the contractor to recover the server on 9 May 2012. Once the facts were established, the incident was reported to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) on 14 June 2012.

Files recovered from non user-accessible areas of the server contained personal and sensitive data, including court documents and e mails, but a detailed forensic analysis and audit did not identify any access to the files during the time the server was not under the control of MOJ and therefore no action has been taken to inform those affected.

The matter is still under investigation by the ICO and we await their report.