Clause 54 - Conditions about allocation and adoption of numbers
Communications Bill
12:30 pm

Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Clause 54(1)(e) and (h) refer to number portability, which is covered by article 30 of the universal service directive. I wish to establish the Minister's intention about the extent to which number portability for geographic numbers may be required.

If one has a geographic number at a specific location, one can transfer it from one communications provider to another—the directive requires that. Does it require the ability to transfer a geographic number attached to a given exchange between one person and another when they are not necessarily at the specific location? To give a practical example, many businesses in the City of London fall under a given exchange and use a number that is consistent with that exchange and therefore capable of routing via that exchange. I believe that, at the moment, although it is technically possible, if such businesses change offices and location, they cannot seek number portability because a number is specific to a location. As I understand it, the directive does not require such portability, but it does not prohibit it. Will it be allowed?

In addition, article 30(2) says that regulators must ensure that

''pricing for interconnection related to the provision of number portability is cost oriented and that''—

this is the key point—

''direct charges to subscribers, if any, do not act as a disincentive of the use of these facilities.''

I think that that provision is translated into subsection (1)(h) as:

''payments of such amounts as may be determined by OFCOM to be made to them by a person in respect of transfers of allocations from one person to another''.

Maybe I have not been diligent enough, but I have not found the obligation on Ofcom to ensure that the charges, if any, do not act as a disincentive for the use of those facilities, as set out in the directive. As the preamble to the directive makes clear, number portability is important to the creation of a competitive market. The point about there being no disincentive to using number portability is important too, yet it does not seem to be reflected in the provisions.

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

I will need to expand my letter to the hon. Gentleman, to pick up some of those points. He is absolutely right about the importance of number portability, which allows users to switch operators. There is no barrier to that, such as the risk to users of losing their number. That is the importance of number portability, rather than people's ability to take their number with them when they move. It is perfectly possible for people who are changing building to ask to take the number from their previous building with them—I can think of examples of cases in which such a request has been acceded to. However, I do not think that it is the intention to make it a requirement that someone moving in those circumstances would be able to insist on taking their number with them. I shall check that, and address the point in the letter that I have already agreed to send to the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of there not being a cost barrier. I am sure that that is addressed—somewhere, although I am not sure exactly where. I shall address that matter, too, in the letter that I look forward to sending him.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 55 to 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.