Vodafone allows government savings to be made public


The telecommunications company Vodafone is the only major government supplier which has agreed to the release of data about how much Whitehall has saved through renegotiation of contracts.

For the last financial year, the government and Vodafone agreed that the state could save £5.3m on its payments to the mobile phone company.

This was one of a number of renegotiations with large suppliers pursued by the coalition after it came to power.

In October 2010 the Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude told the Conservative party conference that the new government had saved "several hundred million pounds" in one year by modifying contracts with its biggest suppliers.

He said this was based on "dealing with them as a single customer instead of letting them play one part of government off against another".

But the Cabinet Office refused to provide a breakdown of this figure by supplier, in response to a freedom of information request from the BBC.

It did provide a departmental breakdown, which showed that the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Work and Pensions accounted for over half the total of the overall government savings target of £671m.

Start Quote

Private companies that do business with the state will increasingly have to face up to questions of openness”

End Quote

The Cabinet Office argued that releasing company-by-company details of savings would damage relationships with suppliers and jeopardise negotiations with them.

The BBC appealed to the Information Commissioner, who last month upheld the government's refusal, except where suppliers themselves consented to the release of the figures.

The only company to agree was Vodafone.

"We believe in being as transparent as possible in our dealings with the Government," said a Vodafone UK spokesperson.

The company denies that the savings agreed indicate that government departments were previously being overcharged.

"Our dealings with central government are now far more about helping government find a better way of working," the spokesperson said.

Campaigners hold up "tax dodger" signs in a protest against Vodaphone The communications firm has faced protests

"We strongly believe that using our technology and expertise will save many hundreds of millions of pounds in areas such as property, energy and fixed-line communications. We are prepared to make an investment in providing services to the public sector to help the government secure the much bigger gains that can be made by working smarter."

Vodafone's financial relations with government have recently been highly controversial because of the company's tax affairs - and the sums involved in this dispute are much greater than the £5m savings - but in the context of these contract renegotiations, Vodafone has been more willing to be transparent than any other large Whitehall supplier.

It illustrates how private companies that do business with the state will increasingly have to face up to questions of openness and freedom of information.

The willingness of public sector suppliers to accept greater scrutiny of their contracts is going to grow in importance as an issue, in line with the pressure for transparency in value for money in public spending.


The Cabinet Office has got in touch to say that since the Information Commissioner's decision, another government supplier has agreed to the release of details of savings - the IT services group Capgemini. In its case, the savings agreed through contract renegotiation total more than £200m, although this figure is over several years until 2017.

The savings agreed with another supplier are expected to be announced later this week. This new policy of disclosing such savings represents a change in approach from the Cabinet Office since the commissioner's ruling.

The Cabinet Office argued that the BBC's FOI request should be rejected even when the companies themselves were happy for the information to be released, because by a process of elimination it could lead to other companies who were not so willing being identified. Now the government does seem keen to publicise some of the company-by-company savings it has agreed.

Martin Rosenbaum Article written by Martin Rosenbaum Martin Rosenbaum Freedom of information specialist

How the Civil Service objected to Kinnock's FOI plans

New documents reveal Whitehall officials objected to aspects of the freedom of information law that Neil Kinnock planned to introduce if Labour won the 1992 election.

Read full article

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 19.

    @BluesBerry I can't imagine Vodafone and Telefonica in a merger. In fact that was the first I heard of it. There would be too much hassle in terms of anti-competition law. Vodafone is an outstanding British company that does a lot for the citizens of the UK as well as on a global platform. Imagine what the country would lose if Vodafone relocated to another part of the world!

  • rate this

    Comment number 18.

    Got the attention of every body this one has eh !

  • rate this

    Comment number 17.

    . . . presumably all this savings are on contracts negotiated by the previous government . . . makes £250,000 to chat to Dave seem pretty insignificant!

  • rate this

    Comment number 16.

    No doubt the communications budget is a stupidly large as the education system's computer budget. Whenever the Government gets involved with tech they normally pay 8-9 times the going rate. Schools buying £400 computers at £3500 is a classic.

    For what the Government pays these tax dodgers they could have their own communications network.

    Who's 'legitimately' fiddling the system this time?

  • rate this

    Comment number 15.

    And onto topic: that Vodafone can offer services to one body for a different price from another is something that has affected me in particular. I was part of a venture to bring unmetered web access to UK consumers in 1996 and we failed because we were told it broke OfCOM competition rules to offer a service to subscribers of one telephone network for a different price from another.


Comments 5 of 19



BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.