Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 62:

In page 35, line 27, after “non-discriminatory” to insert “, and which must be accessible through offline as well as online channels, including by telephone or in-person”.

Amendment No. 62 relates to section 41, which requires that providers have in place procedures for dealing with complaints that are fair, accessible and prompt. This section is a regulatory provision and it is subject to the powers of enforcement which come later in the legislation. It is again a positive provision but because it is so crucial in the context of the regulatory provision which compels providers to have accessible complaint-handling mechanisms, it is important there is no ambiguity around the wording in terms of "accessible". This small section on its own bears a huge load in terms of the effectiveness of the Bill. It provides the bulk of protections for consumers against poor complaint-handling processes. This amendment, therefore, seeks to include specific wording to clarify what is meant by "non-discriminatory" and clarifies that "non-discriminatory" channels for complaints "must be accessible through offline as well as online channels, including by telephone or in-person". This is intended again to ensure these processes are accessible to the 42% of the population who may not be accessing measures digitally. This is important because it concerns accessibility to complaints-handling processes. It is not, therefore, not just around a general standards provision but situations where there might be complaints.

Amendment No. 63 ensures that when providers are developing their own codes of practice around complaints handling that they would specify that offline channels will be offered for the making of complaints. Again, this is another layer of protection to ensure there is no interpretation of the term "accessible" which leans solely towards what is profitable rather than what is good for the customer. I refer to something that may, perhaps, have a minimum standard that meets the minimum web accessibility directive standards. These are accessibility standards and they are important, but they relate solely to web accessibility. This amendment is to ensure that does not become the interpretation of accessibility and that the issue of access for those who do not have capacity digitally is not left unconsidered. My amendment is intended to ensure we have clarity in this area. I do not think there is a definition of "accessibility" in the Bill. The term has different definitions, which are largely associated with the important rights people have under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The concept of access has a wider frame in this context, though, and refers to access for persons through the means by which they are best able to access information or their rights. I am again proposing language to try to strengthen this aspect. If the Minister of State may have other language which he thinks could address this same concern, then I am open to that.