Mr Andrew Robathan (Blaby, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No.85, in

clause 86, page 82, line 43, at end add

'with a facility to override that selection on any occasion by dialling a code determined by OFCOM'.

The amendment relates to override facilities. Article 19 of the universal service directive requires facilities to be available for carrier selection, whereby a caller can decide over which network to direct the call by dialling a code. That is welcome. Carrier pre-selection, whereby people can decide in advance to turn over all their calls to a particular network is also provided for.

The directive requires the pre-selected choice to be capable of being overridden on a call-by-call basis by the dialling of an appropriate code. However, it is not clear that the Bill provides for that. The amendment would make it clear that the override facility must be available and that the carrier pre-selection facility must include a way in which to override the pre-selected choice on a call-by-call basis by dialling

an appropriate code. If that facility is not available, consumer choice and the ability of consumers to find the cheapest option for making an individual call will be limited.

While I am on my feet, will the Minister comment on whether subsection (3)(b) reinforces local loop unbundling and whether it is intended to allow greater access to broadband, which we discussed at length in a previous sitting?

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon & East Chelmsford, Conservative)

My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) has ably put the case for the amendment and I do not want to repeat what he said, but carrier pre-selection is important. The Committee has already spent some time looking for ways in which to increase competition for domestic telecommunications customers. There may be various other means, but carrier pre-selection is clearly a way in which customers are facilitated with greater choice. For a long time, one of the principal complaints from alternative providers was that carrier pre-selection was not available.

All those with experience of competition or choice in telecommunications will remember having to punch in a different number every time they dialled to access the network of the alternative operator. Some operators supply a box to plug into the wall. The technology to make that unnecessary has been available for a considerable time, if only the main provider would agree to pre-selection, but there has been a certain amount of foot dragging. Less than a year ago, one of the main alternative providers was complaining to me about the failure to make any progress in obtaining pre-selection. Thankfully, we now have it—because of the efforts of Ofcom and, it appears, the European Commission. I hope that that will give competition in the market a real boost.

Amendment No. 85 seeks to create a level playing field. Now that we have obtained carrier pre-selection, the consumer makes one call to BT to say that in future he wants all his calls to be routed through a particular operator. He does not need to take any further actions or decisions. However, it seems fair that a facility should exist whereby, in certain instances, he can go back to the main operator. The amendment would ensure that that was possible. It would also ensure parity of treatment and clear competition among all the providers—even if one is dominant and the others are smaller and have to use BT's network.

Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I confess that this is not an area of the Bill that the Joint Committee considered, so I am on my own here. I will follow my hon. Friends' lead.

My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) is a little more familiar with the introduction of carrier selection or pre-selection than I am. In this context, pre-selection is more prevalent than selection. My first question to the Minister is therefore about the time scale and the extent of the impact that pre-selection will have on individual users. There is a substantial difference between carrier pre-selection and selection. Pre-selection is the basis of a contract—at the moment, people can readily pre-select cable rather

than BT or other network providers—but I presume that selection means that there would be no pre-existing contract. Will carrier selection mean that we will all, from any telephone, have the opportunity to choose whatever network provider we desire; or will there have to be some kind of contractual relationship?

My second point is slightly more tortuous. It relates to the transposition of the provisions of the universal service directive into clause 86. The relationship is close, but article 19(2) of the directive allows for:

''User requirements for these facilities''—

by which is meant provision for interconnection—

''to be implemented on other networks or in other ways''.

Article 19 was originally about the public telephone network, and clause 86 is about public electronic communications networks and services. That is fine, because article 19 also refers to ''other networks''. However, the phrase ''or in other ways'' might not be covered by clause 86.

Article 19 refers to telephone numbers and individual calls, and the definition of ''relevant connection facility'' in clause 86(6) refers to the use of telephone numbers. That has a direct bearing on the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale about broadband. If, at some point, users' requirements suggest that interconnection and carrier selection are desired in relation to broadband facilities, it does not follow that those users will use telephone numbers. It does not follow that they will work on the basis set out in clause 86(6). However, article 19 clearly anticipates such a possibility because it uses the words,

''on other networks or in other ways.''

We have covered the other networks, but not the other ways.

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

I have looked carefully at the amendment and it appears that that point is already covered in the Bill. The requirement in paragraph (6)(b), is to enable

''that selection to be made either—

(i) by the use of a telephone number on each separate occasion on which a selection is made; or

(ii) by designating in advance''.

The first of those options covers the use of a code in the way in which the amendment envisages. Perhaps the confusion is with the use of ''telephone number'', rather than ''code''. If it is accepted that a telephone number can include a code, that point is already covered in sub-paragraph (i). Either one dials a code, or one does not, in which case the pre-selection takes effect.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon & East Chelmsford, Conservative)

I am grateful for that reassurance. The Minister will understand that that is a requirement under the directive and the Bill should accurately reflect that.

The Minister believes that the point is already covered, but he should understand that we do not just wake up in the middle of the night and think, ''That's a good point to raise.'' We raised the point about selection because various interested parties who operate in this area have expressed a concern that

the drafting of the Bill is not clear. The purpose of the amendment is to make it clear. Does the Minister object to the amendment on that basis? If the amendment clarifies a point that he says is already contained in the Bill, I am not sure why he would object to including it.

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

Because I think that the amendment would muddy the waters. At the moment it is clear that the selection is made either by the use of a code or by pre-selection. An addendum to the second option which takes one back to the code, as is specified in the first option, would make things less clear. The key is that the reference to a telephone number in sub-paragraph (i) could include a code—there would generally be a code. Once that is grasped, the Committee will see that the point is already covered in that formulation.

The hon. Member for Blaby asked me whether subsection (3)(b) referred to local loop unbundling. We attach much importance to that, and he is right to emphasise it. The clause is, however, clearly about carrier selection and pre-selection and it does not refer to local loop unbundling.

The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire asked me about selection and pre-selection. Both are covered in the clause. Regarding the question on other networks and, in particular, the impact on broadband, I think that that is covered, because a number will still need to be dialled and an address will need to be provided. The point is covered in the Bill. It is, however, important that that provision is future proof. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that.

Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I think that the Minister is correct. The definition of telephone numbers in clause 52(5) is very wide, as it includes any code, number or means of selecting a route for an electronic signal, so it is probably future proof. However, I wish to draw his attention to whether under the new regime one can individually make selection at will, rather than on a contractual basis.

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

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that definition of telephone numbers is wide.

The clause covers selection both on a call-by-call choice basis and on a pre-programmed formal agreement basis.

Mr Andrew Robathan (Blaby, Conservative)

I was particularly interested in the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire about other ways, but we may have to return to that later, as there seems to be a large gap.

On the amendment, I am not entirely satisfied that the Minister has addressed the points that have been made. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said, good legal advice was taken and it suggests that there is confusion—which was also mentioned by the Minister. The requirements of the directive must be taken into account. We consider—and the legal advice suggests—that the drafting may not be as good as we have come to expect from the excellent civil servants who support the Minister. If there is confusion, problems might arise in the future.

I do not think that subsection 6(b)(ii) makes it likely that people will override. They will designate in advance, and they will then be less likely to override. The amendment is intended to give them that override facility throughout. That would enhance consumer choice. I hope that the Minister and his civil servants will think further about that, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.