Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for accepting amendment No. 60. It is important it will send a signal about the seriousness with which the customer charter should be treated. I still have concerns. I appreciate the Minister of State's point on there being a balance with regard to the discretion of ComReg. It identifies the areas. There is also the fact that, ultimately, one of the things ComReg will do is respond to areas indicated in legislation. There is a reason there are provisions with regard to disability access. It is because the EU web accessibility directive has required it. It took a directive to make this start to happen. It was not a simple response to the needs of customers. Those who are not particularly empowered online are not those who will necessarily take part in consultations. I am not sure what consultations ComReg does but I am pretty sure they are not phone consultations. I am pretty sure that if it does consultations, they are probably digital consultations, as most are at this point.

We have a duty as public representatives and legislators to reflect and communicate where we think there is an area that needs regulation. The detail of this regulation we may well transfer to a body such as ComReg, but the identification of a social need and a public good is something we are entitled to do. It is appropriate that we try to it. This is why there is a number of areas we already list and identify as being areas where they may be regulation. The Minister of State has said he will not accept the amendment to change "may" to "shall". It is important to identify these issues.

The phrase "direction of travel" is very worrying. We saw this language used in the attempt by the banks to use the fact that people did not go into branches in person during a pandemic to justify that people no longer wanted to have in-person access to their banks and that they were all very happy to move online. We knew this was not the case. There were significant impacts in terms of financial independence and abuse during the time when people were not in a position to access in-person services and often had to rely on others to access their finances online. I am quite serious about this issue. If we are looking at 42% of the population, it is not a small component of people.

I am precisely concerned about a regulator being in conversation with various actors We know that often there are a large number of movers in a sector who simply declare that a new mechanism is under way and technology has moved on. For example, now that we have chatbots, it may be suggested we know longer need to have somebody at the end of a phone. There is this patronising suggestion that people miss having someone speak to them in sentences. We may have a chatbot that says, in response to someone saying "How are you?", that it does not understand the point versus having somebody who can listen and respond to people. It is not the same thing. We are seeing strong bad analysis by actors in the sector with regard to the needs of the public. In this regard I urge the Minister of State to consider this, even if he does not like my phrasing of "offline, telephone and in-person channels". Perhaps there is another phrasing I will use on Report Stage. It is vital it remains. Even if it were not 42% of the population and it were 10% of the population, it would be important that it remains and that it be regulated. I urge the Minister of State to reconsider this point.

With regard to the question of rights, the fact there was a statutory instrument in 2022 points to the level of concern about the changes in contracts to which people are being subjected. The problem with the order is that it does not address the nub of the issue. As I have said previously, there are joining fees and installation fees. There are significant fees. People decide between one company and another with regard to what contract they want to sign up to. They choose to sign a contract with a company for 12 months, 18 months or six months. They know the company will not let them change their perspective halfway through on what the deal should involve. Why should the company be able to change the rules part of the way through? Simply saying people are released from the contract at that point and that they can go again means they will face more joining fees. People might well have made a different decision back in the January when they signed the contract. They may well have chosen a different company then had they known the one they did choose would change the rules in April and again in November. This is significant. The burden of additional costs of joining and an additional process is being put on the citizens who sign up to the contract.

I do not believe the statutory instrument in place is adequate to address it. I do not believe it is an adequate measure. I would appreciate if the Minister of State indicated on Report Stage whether there are plans for a further statutory instrument. It is not sufficient that people are told they can leave. Effectively, if we continue with this practice, the State is allowing and rewarding a switch and bait. Companies sign up people on a low contract. We all know the force of inertia is one of the strongest forces relied on in marketing to keep people in contracts even if the conditions disimprove. We are in danger of allowing and permitting a perverse incentive for companies to engage in poor marketing practices.

Will the Minister of State consider these two issues between now and Report Stage? Even if he does not like the phrasing of the approach I have taken, will he consider whether there are ways, perhaps through a narrowing of the language on the offline provision or even to a supplementary statutory instrument, to address these issues? I would appreciate it.