Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 54:

In page 30, line 33, to delete “may” and substitute “shall”.

With amendment No. 54, we are into a different topic and a different set of issues. We are out of the area of risks to national security although we are still discussing dangers to the public, especially the risks they face in their engagements with different operators.

Amendment No. 54 is simple. It requires that the commission "shall" specify minimum quality-of-service standards rather than that it "may". Many other provisions of this legislation are structured around these standards. They are the basis on which failure of service is established and on which compensation is paid under schemes and further regulatory provisions are also linked to them. As a lot of this part of the Bill leans on these minimum quality-of-service standards, it is appropriate that we ensure that such standards are specified. To say that they may be set is just a little bit loose. It does not provide a timeline. It is important that the commission be obliged to specify minimum quality-of-service standards. It is a simple amendment replacing "may" with "shall".

Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 address an issue I feel really strongly about because it is one I have encountered for a long time, even when I worked in one of my previous roles before entering the Oireachtas, that is, when I worked with the organisation Older and Bolder, which worked with older people's organisations across Ireland. I am conscious of the wide digital divide we have and the significant gap with regard to people's ability to access information. These amendments insert language on "the need to provide offline, telephone and in-person channels" in order that it is not sufficient to only have online channels for customer complaints or customer service. There must be offline, telephone and in-person channels. These amendments related to section 37 and the idea of minimum quality-of-service standards. I reiterate that these service standards are a core part of the legislation. Everything that comes later in the Bill leans on them. It is really important that we get this right from the very beginning and that the minimum service standards address the issue of offline access and having a telephone number you can contact. By ensuring that those standards are as robust and customer-focused as possible, we can ensure the commission has teeth in enforcing genuinely meaningful customer service standards.

The digital divide in this country is far greater than is commonly understood. Because so many technology giants have headquarters here, there is an illusion that people are digitally capable but the 2020 report, Bridging the Gap - Ireland's Digital Divide, found that 42% of Irish people describe themselves as average or below average for digital skills and that at least 25% of the Irish population feels excluded from an increasingly digital society. EU research has made similar findings. It found that almost half the population of Ireland lack basic digital skills. Those figures are changing very slowly. It is a very significant issue. One reason we do not see it is because people find ways around it. They rely on relatives and family members to assist them when it comes to banking, dealing with Revenue, changing their phone contracts and engaging online in any other way they need to. However, that is not always an adequate solution because it compromises people's financial independence and their independence in decision-making with regard to privacy and the right to a private life. Many older people, people with literacy issues and others are dependent on others to engage with service providers on their behalf because they do not have proper access to customer support or customer services through, for example, a phone line. In all of these areas, we are encouraged to move online. People are actively discouraged from calling the company or seeking to speak to a representative at an in-person branch. We all know how long you can spend searching a website to find a number you could conceivably call. That may be fine for many people but a large portion of the population are being left behind, disenfranchised and disadvantaged as a result.A report from Accenture in 2022 found that Ireland's digital divide worsened during the pandemic. That divide is not going away at the pace that is needed.

This legislation is an opportunity to compel companies to account to and serve all sectors of society. Whether it is preferable or profitable for them to do so should not be the requirement. There should be an obligation on them to do so. It may appeal to a company, as it seeks to slash its costs, to have only a chatbot available to deal with customer complaints. This is where regulation must apply. We cannot rely solely on market pressure to create regulation. We have seen that the direction of travel is towards the use of anonymised chatbots. I recently booked a doctor's appointment through a chatbot, which was strange. That is the route providers are going down and it requires that the State and regulations come into play. The provision of particular services must not simply be offered as a product or option. There must be an obligation on providers to offer the services.

The amendments make specific reference to telephone lines, in particular, and other communication channels. It is important to specify what is meant by "accessible". We want to ensure providers have channels in place that are accessible to all customers, including those who are not confident in using a digital mechanism such as a chatbot or other online means, to make a query about their bill, for example, or any of the other simple things a customer should be entitled to do.

Amendment No. 57 relates to an issue on which I have had correspondence, some of which I might pass on to the Minister of State. It is an issue that has been brought to my attention a lot. There have been price hikes by companies such as Eir in the recent period. Nobody would be surprised by companies raising their prices occasionally in the current high-inflation environment. What comes as a surprise to customers is that price hikes are being introduced that apply more or less immediately. Rather than the price increasing when customers renew their contracts, the increases are affecting them mid-contract. All customers uniformly in a given month, regardless of where they are in their contract and any reasonable expectations they may have had when they signed that contract, are simply being told their rates are increasing. In effect, the telephone companies are breaking the original contracts signed with individual customers by changing the terms midway through a contract period. They are obliged to offer customers the right to leave the contract without penalty but most customers either will not be aware the rates are changing or they cannot afford to switch providers when the price increases hit. If they want to switch broadband, they are looking at a joining fee, installation fee and the cost of a new modem. In effect, they are hostage to the contract they are in for the period for which it extends.

The introduction of an increase in prices midway through a contract is something that needs to be looked to and regulated against. It should be something that can only be done in the period after the expiry of a contract. If a customer signs a contract in November at a certain price, he or she should not be subject to a unilateral change by April. People need to plan their finances. Much as companies want to ensure their returns, householders want to plan their finances for the six months or year ahead. It is a bare minimum of customer protection that customers should be able to depend on the contract they have signed being honoured. This is a moderate amendment that simply gives ComReg the power to include standards regarding adherence to contract terms within the minimum service standards set out under section 37 of the Bill. It is a reasonable proposal that there be another area the commission can regulate regarding adherence to contract terms. A number of individuals have contacted me who are affected by this issue. I am sure the Minister of State does not need evidence but people have provided me with such evidence regarding their expectations and their engagement with different companies.

Amendment No. 58 seeks to strengthen the language around service standards. It specifies the use of "shall" rather than "may" in reference to the publishing of guidelines on the application of minimum quality of service standards. These provisions are a core pillar of the Bill and should be binding. The guidelines certainly should be published.

Amendment No. 59 seeks to strengthen the language around the customer charter. It is not sufficient that ComReg would regulate the sector. It is important that individual citizens - the customers we are speaking of are, in many cases, citizens who live in Ireland and whom we in the Oireachtas serve - have access to a customer charter and that they know their rights. It is important that providers be obliged to developed a customer charter by which they must abide. This would place a positive duty on the provider to state how its customers should and will be treated. It also would empower to commission to measure providers' performance against their customer charters. It would signal clearly to customers that there is a tool available to allow them to see when a provider is not living up to set standards, rather than them having to navigate each situation alone. The charter is a really positive element in the Bill and one of its empowering components. I welcome it. However, we must ensure the charter is not simply a thing the commission may require from certain actors. Rather, we must move towards a position in which all the service providers are delivering and publishing such charters.

Amendment No. 60 likewise seeks to strengthen the language around the customer charter. It specifies the use of "shall" rather than "may" in reference to the measuring of performance against the charter. This should be a binding provision. It should not be something that might only apply to providers that have a bad record, that receive complaints or about which there is a concern. It should not be seen as a punitive measure that may be applied to certain providers but as something that is guaranteed and standard. Any customer should expect to see a customer charter. It should not be an aspirational document but one with which the provider must comply in order to meet the required standard.

These amendments are a response to the positive parts of the Bill, which are around potentially strengthening the rights of citizens and customers and ensuring people feel empowered when dealing with multiple actors. At the moment, people are required to navigate their engagement with these companies in dealing with day-to-day issues in their lives. They must be empowered in such engagement. The provisions in the Bill are potentially positive and I hope the Minister of State appreciates that this suite of amendments is simply seeking to strengthen further those components.