Our ref: FOI/56547/08/AL

Dear Ms Gant,

Freedom of Information Act Request

Further to my letter of 6 April 2009 I am writing to confirm that the Department has now completed its consideration of the public interest test in respect of your Freedom of Information request for the following information:

“Could you please supply me with the tariffs HM Prison Service is

signed up to for International, National, Local and Mobile phone calls for the inmate telephone system. Could this information please be provided for the previous year in monthly or quarterly breakdowns? (Copies of bills for the last 12 months if possible)

Could you please supply me copies of the current contracts with the telecoms provider for the inmate telephone system”.

Firstly, I would like to apologise for the length of time that it has taken us to fully consider your request.

I am pleased to say that we are able to release to you a redacted copy of HM Prison Service's contract with British Telecom (BT) for the supply of telephone services to public sector prisons using a system designed, installed and managed by them. We consider that certain parts of that contract are covered by the exemptions in section 43 (commercial interests) and section 31 (law enforcement) of the Freedom of Information Act. In addition, other information covered by your request, including copies of contracts with other service providers, and current international tariffs with one provider, Global Communications and Consulting Ltd (GCC), is commercially sensitive and is therefore exempt by virtue of Section 43(2).

As part of the arrangement under the contract with BT, it builds, maintains and owns the entire infrastructure at minimal cost to the National Offender Management Service (NOMS). Prisoners are required to purchase credits in one pound units - or in the case of GCC cards in £3, £5 or £10 denominations - through prison retail outlets so there is no billing arrangement as such.

Exemptions:

Under section 43(2) information is exempt information if its disclosure under the Act would, or would likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority) holding it. We believe that by providing the breakdown of detailed tariffs for international, national, local and mobile phone with our service providers, could prejudice our commercial interests in future negotiations and certainly those of our service providers. Disclosure could also enable the pricing strategy for certain work to be deduced, to the detriment of our service providers and therefore place their competitors at a commercial advantage.

Although we have considered the public interest in the transparency of Government, the commercially-related functions of the HM Prison Service (HMPS) need in any event to be exercised in the wider context of the public interest. It is contrary to the public interest for information to be disclosed that would lead to the HMPS being placed in an unfavourable commercial bargaining position to the extent that the proper use of taxpayers' money is at risk. Disclosure may also undermine our negotiating position, within a competitive environment, in relation to discussions with future service providers by revealing such market-sensitive information. This adverse affect upon its bargaining position during contractual negotiations would result in the less effective use of public money. As we are unable to release the information without prejudicing our commercial interests, the balance clearly comes down in favour of withholding the information at this time.

Some of the information contained within the contracts relates to security issues and as such is covered by Section 31(1)(f) on the basis that its disclosure would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of security and good order in prisons of the Act. This exemption is subject to a public interest test. In this particular case, we consider that the public interest falls in favour of not disclosing the information. Under section 17(4) of the Act, a public authority is not obliged to provide arguments in support of its decision as to the balance of the public interest, if, or to the extent that, doing so would involve the disclosure of information which would itself be exempt information. In this case, we consider that aspects of the relevant public interest arguments in themselves constitute exempt information.

You may also wish to be aware that British Telecom have made a commercial decision to publish their tariffs on their website. This information can be accessed at the following link:

http://www.serviceview.bt.com/list/public/current/Call_Charges_boo/0016_d0e25139.htm

and

http://www.serviceview.bt.com/list/public/current/Call_Charges_boo/0017_d0e4852.htm#0017-d0e4852

Further information can be obtained from the two main service providers, British Telecom (BT) and GCC for international calls, directly.

I hope you find the above information helpful.

If you are unhappy with the result of your request for information, you may request an internal review within two calendar months of the date of this letter by writing to Data Access & Compliance Unit, Information Directorate, Ministry of Justice,1^st Floor - Area C, 102 Petty France, London SW1H 9AJ

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely

Amrit Lotay (Ms)

Access Rights Unit

Page 2