Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 Jun 2015

Vol. 882 No. 1

Communications Regulation (Postal Services) (Amendment) Bill 2015: Second Stage

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am pleased to present the Communications Regulation (Postal Services) Amendment Bill 2015 for the consideration of this House. This legislation is an important, almost final, milestone in the introduction of a national postcode system. Ireland is the only country in the European Union or the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development without a postcode system. While successive Governments have grappled with this issue, this Government is now in a position to bring the postcodes project to a successful conclusion.

The Communications Regulation (Postal Services) Act 2011 provided for the full liberalisation of the postal sector in Ireland. It included provisions, in section 66, to permit the Minister to establish a national postcode system. In July 2009 the then Government approved the launch of a procurement process for a national postcode, based on the 2006 report of the national postcode project board. In 2010, the Department established a postcode steering group and undertook a wide-ranging consultation on the implementation of a national postcode system. More than 60 interested parties were met as part of that process. There was a positive response to the consultation process, and the Department received detailed views on various issues, including the technical specification, dissemination and the commercialisation of the system.

A detailed procurement process began in January 2011. In October 2013 the Government approved the appointment of Capita as the postcode contractor. Capita employs over 2,000 people in Ireland. They have been contracted to design, develop and implement the national postcode system, working with indigenous Irish companies to create the supporting technology for the project. The brand Eircode was approved by Government in April 2014.

The ways in which we communicate and conduct our business have been radically transformed in recent years. This transformation is ongoing. Our digital economy is worth €8.4 billion, and is growing at a rate of 20% per year, five times faster than the rest of the economy. Research suggests that, by 2020, the value of the digital economy will have risen to 10% of gross domestic product, GDP, or over €21 billion. Irish consumers spend in excess of €6 billion a year. That is of the order of €700,000 per hour, 24 hours a day. Moving goods from a virtual point of sale to people's homes and businesses is a major logistical undertaking.

During the consultative phase of this project, many stakeholders, in the public and private sectors, told us about the challenges of finding addresses in Ireland, particularly in rural areas. First, approximately 35% of premises have exactly the same address as another property. Second, in urban and rural areas, the same building can have multiple forms of address. Finally, and unlike other countries, we have no legal form of addressing in Ireland. We have, therefore, adopted a unique approach, tailored to meeting our unique addressing challenges. We have developed a postcode system that assigns a unique identifier to each address in the State. This approach is future-proofed in that it allows for future expansion in the number of addresses without changing Eircodes. It is also sustainable, with no requirement to re-assign or change existing Eircodes when new premises are built. Fundamentally, this project involves delivering a critical piece of national infrastructure which will secure benefits such as making it easier for consumers to shop online and assisting the development of Irish online commerce; improving the quality of access to public services, while reducing the cost; enabling commercial organisations to improve existing services and develop new service offerings; improving planning and analysis capabilities across public and private sectors; providing a stimulus to mail volumes through improved direct marketing capabilities; and making it quicker and easier for emergency services to locate addresses, particularly in rural areas.

A comprehensive communications campaign has been developed for the introduction of Eircodes. Significant stakeholder engagement was undertaken during the procurement process and the initial roll-out. Thirty industry seminars have been conducted since March 2014. These industry groups include telecoms, energy, banking, insurance, retail and logistics. Over 1,000 people, representing over 600 companies have attended these sessions and additional seminars will be held over the next two months. Information for businesses is also available on the Eircode website which provides guidance on preparing for Eircode and details of the products and pricing. Sample data has also been made available to allow businesses and other organisations test their systems in advance of the launch.

Immediately following the launch of Eircode every premises in Ireland will receive a letter containing the Eircode for that address. The letter will include information on the benefits of Eircode and how it can be used. The launch will also feature a national communications campaign involving television, radio, national and regional press. This will be complemented by an online tool to enable citizens to find Eircodes and addresses easily. Members of the public will be able to enter an address to find an Eircode or enter an Eircode to find an address. This Eircode finder will be easily accessible on a computer, tablet or smartphone. It will also be able to identify addresses on an ordnance survey map, helping the user with directions if needed.

Equally important is an outreach programme managed by Capita, the Wheel and Irish Rural Link which is under way. This is reaching out to vulnerable groups to explain the benefits of the codes and to address any concerns people may have as to their use. I am particularly pleased that this outreach programme includes the recruitment of 23 outreach champions to drive awareness at county level.

These champions are recruiting volunteers involved in local organisations in practically every town and village to ensure all sectors of society are aware of and comfortable with Eircodes. They have reported a positive response to the introduction, with widespread interest in learning more about them. More than 1,200 volunteers in more than 550 local organisations have mobilised to reach out to people in their local communities, including GAA clubs and community alert, active retirement and rural transport groups. These volunteers have assisted more than 8,000 people and are planning to reach thousands more in the weeks and months ahead. Local briefings, print materials and electronic information have been provided to community, voluntary and civil society groups at national and local level. Information leaflets will be available in citizens information centres. This effort is providing further assistance and ensuring greater understanding of the new system among vulnerable groups.

Eircodes are not compulsory, no one will have to pay for them and they will be rolled out automatically. Citizens do not need to take any specific action once an Eircode has been received through the letter box.

The final significant element of the project is the enactment of this legislation, which will ensure members of the public can have absolute confidence regarding data protection. Given the tight timeframe for completion of this project and the substantial commitments which had been entered into around communications and a signalled launch date during the summer, I regret it has not been possible to facilitate pre-legislative scrutiny.

The primary purpose of this legislation is to enshrine the highest protection within the postcode system. It also provides the clearest possible reassurance that all personal data will remain secure. My Department has consistently taken a strong line on data protection in the design, implementation and operation of the project. This position is also reflected in the contract with Capita.

As Minister, I have decided that this approach should be confirmed in primary legislation to ensure the greatest level of protection for citizens. My Department has had ongoing engagement with the Data Protection Commissioner and has completed a comprehensive privacy impact assessment. The Bill provides a sensible and pragmatic approach to data protection as it relates to postcodes. It sets out the high level principles underpinning a protective framework, striking a balance between ensuring the commercial viability of postcodes, while underpinning data protection.

I will now address the text of the Bill, which is divided into three sections. Sections 1 and 3 contain standard preliminary provisions and definitions. Section 2 contains the main provisions, sets out the amendments to the Communications Regulation (Postal Services) Act 2011 and outlines requirements for the use of postcodes. It provides a statutory footing for specified legitimate postcode activities, which are fundamental to the establishment and implementation of the postcode project. Section 66 also provides additional safeguards for the legitimate interests of owners and occupiers of properties by providing the Minister with powers to set down requirements that businesses must satisfy before they can be granted a licence to use a postcode database to provide value added services. Value added services are products or services that use or are derived from a postcode database. This provision enables the Minister to ensure that those who sell such services, known as value added resellers or VARs, are screened against specific criteria before they can use postcode databases.

This section also provides the Minister with the power, by regulation, to require the postcode contractor to include certain specific provisions in the licences it grants to value added resellers. This enables the Minister to ensure there is a robust legal contract governing the manner in which value added resellers use postcode databases, including protections such as audit rights and sanctions such as suspension and termination of licences. In addition, the postcode contractor will only grant a licence to a value added reseller or end user where it can be demonstrated that the VAR has registered with the appropriate data protection regulator, if this is required.

Section 66B introduces a specific obligation for the postcode contractor and value added resellers to publish a privacy notice. This requires specific information to be made readily available to individuals on how postcodes will be used and to whom they may be licensed. It also sets out individual rights with a view to enabling the creation of a clear and transparent data protection framework.

Section 66C provides for the amendment of the principal Act to clarify that certain legitimate postcode activities may be undertaken in compliance with the Data Protection Acts. The scope of these legitimate postcode activities has been kept deliberately narrow. It covers the fundamental functions of the postcode system, including the development and maintenance of the postcode system, dissemination of postcodes, matching of addresses and licensing and reselling of the postcode address database.

The Minister is also to be given the power to make regulations specifying new legitimate postcode activities. The Minister will be required to consult the Data Protection Commissioner and Minister for Justice and Equality before making any regulations in this respect.

Section 66C only applies to legitimate postcode activities undertaken by the postcode contractor, the Minister or value added resellers. Consequently, the Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003 apply fully as regards the processing of personal data by end users or others.

Section 66D sets out the complaints procedure regarding postcodes and establishes adequate steps to safeguard the legitimate interests of owners and occupiers of properties.

Section 66E imposes a further statutory obligation on the postcode contractor to develop a data retention policy to ensure decommissioned postcodes are retained for record keeping purposes.

This legislation will copper-fasten the highest level of data protection to the postcodes project, ensuring the confidence of citizens and commercial entities in the roll-out, implementation and operation of the system. In the interests of providing certainty to all market players, enabling the development of fair competition among value added resellers and enhancing the protection of postcode users, it is important that the most appropriate data protection framework is put in place swiftly.

I look forward to hearing the views of Members on this important Bill. I also look forward to the launch of our national postcode in the summer, as scheduled. I commend the Bill to the House.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Bill. I do so in substitution for my colleague, Deputy Michael Moynihan, who is unable to attend the debate.

In 2006, the then Commissioner for Data Protection, Mr. Billy Hawkes, warned that a code which identifies unique addresses instead of wider areas would pose data protection problems. He stated that individual post codes for each dwelling could be used for any purpose, including the provision of State services and commercial exploitation. In the 2013 annual report, the Data Protection Commissioner noted that his serious concern about the code had "since turned into a reality with the Minister’s announcement on the 8th October 2013 that Cabinet had agreed to the roll-out of the unique seven digit character code to every letter box in the State by 2015."

In this context, the Minister has introduced the Bill to ensure the processing of any personal data in post code enabled databases is in compliance with the Data Protection Act. From that perspective, the Fianna Fáil Party welcomes the Bill and we will support it. As I noted, the legislation aims to address the serious deficiencies identified previously regarding privacy and data protection fears ahead of the planned introduction of the new post code system, Eircode, later this year.

Before going into the contents of the Bill, I wish to raise a point as a postmaster myself. I was disappointed, as were a number of people, that the Government did not award the contract for the implementation of postcodes to the An Post network. Even in the last 12 months since he was elevated to his current office, the Minister will have heard support across all political parties for maintaining and enhancing the An Post network. Given the fact An Post delivers mail to every house with a next day delivery rate of 98% and it had the national geographical directory which, I understand, the Department has instructed it to make available to Capita in preparation for the roll out of Eircode, the failure to award An Post the contract is regrettable. Unlike other European countries, particularly France, we sometimes stick rigidly to a very basic tendering process where best price wins out. Conditions are not always put in place whereby the common good and what is best for the maintenance of State-owned companies and what would give them the best return must be considered. There is a worry because Capita has won this tendering process. In the UK, Capita is involved in the broadcasting charge and runs schemes similar to those run by An Post for the National Treasury Management Agency. There is a great fear in An Post and the IPU, the union representing postmasters, which I bring to the Minister's attention. As Capita has a foot in the door and access to every postal address in the State, it may be best placed to implement the broadcasting charge the Government will implement in the not too distant future. My guess is that it will be introduced in eight months. There is a fear which the Minister needs to take on board. An Post feels very aggrieved about the manner in which the Government is supporting it to ensure it has a sustainable future.

The Minister alluded in his opening address to the fact that the idea of postcodes was initiated in 2004 and 2005 but for various reasons, it was pushed out. This is one of the few countries in the world that does not have a postcode system. The reason we have not had a postcode system to date may be because of the size of the country. We have a population of 4.5 million people and 2.2 million addresses, between 30% and 35% of which are non-unique addresses. That is where An Post has played such a pivotal role historically. The local postman or postwoman knew intimately where every townland was. One could name ten townlands in my own area and no one would know where they were unless he or she had a good knowledge of the locality. There is a concern about the fact that the new Eircode system is a non-sequential code system. I understand that houses which are close to each other will not have similar postcodes. According to freight companies and some of the emergency services, this could lead to mass confusion.

It is very worrying that freedom of information documents show that the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources went against the advice of a private consultancy company and a State-appointed postcode board when it approved the design of Eircode. Why was that? It is very important to know. The new Eircode system has not been sufficiently tested and the random nature of postcodes is a serious problem for a new structure. While I have indicated that Fianna Fáil will support the Bill, it is not too late to review the plan for Eircode to consult with freight companies and the emergency services and to ensure that a system that has not been tested - the Minister may correct me if I am wrong - is fit for purpose. If the debacle of Irish Water has taught us anything it is that we should be 100% confident and sure of a system before implementing it. That a consultant was engaged to do a job and the Department acted contrary to the advice of that consultant is something we need to see addressed in the very near future.

The Freight Transport Association estimates that the introduction of Eircode will cost the industry €80 million and that is if just 5% of small and medium businesses adopt it. This is based on the assumption that any business that adopts the postcodes will need to pay up to €5,000 for an Eircode database on top of the cost of updating its own customer accounts payable and accounts received database to ensure it is compliant with the new system. The new system will be of no use to the association's members because the code generated for each address is random meaning the codes for adjacent properties bear no relation to each other. The Irish Fire and Emergency Services Association says that because the codes are non-sequential and bear no relation to neighbouring locations, errors by users could go unnoticed as well as cause confusion. Such confusion may be catastrophic in terms of sending services to the wrong locations. Comparing Eircode to the sequential codes used in the North where emergency staff are used to postcodes that can often be learned and predictable allowing them to find localities easily from memory, the association claims that Eircode does not offer that capability and will not be visible on street signs to help the public raise the alarm.

As I have said, freedom of information documents reveal that the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources went against the advice of a private consultancy company and a State-appointed postcode board when it approved the design of Eircode. Eircode is a world first in assigning a random code to every address in the country which, its proponents claim, will tackle Ireland's high number of non-unique rural addresses. Critics claim, however, that it will be of less use to the public and private companies as the random codes will not identify clusters of addresses, a benefit of hierarchical codes such as that in use in the UK. Ireland has many similarities to the UK in terms of settlement patterns. We have our large towns and our small villages, although Ireland may have more isolated rural dwellings. I have a fear that because the new Eircode system being advocated by the Government will not have similar postcodes for houses in close proximity to each other, it will cause confusion.

I hope the Minister will take this into consideration and that he will review the decision on implementation.

The tender was originally awarded to Capita. An Post had grievances with regard to the allocation of the tender considering its own track record in next-day delivering to all houses the length and breadth of the country. I put the Minister on notice that the Irish Postmasters Union has significant reservations about the level of priority afforded by the Government to the network. We are conscious that if more services are not put our way then the network will not be viable in the future. That is the cornerstone for any community but in particular for communities in rural Ireland.

While I have deviated slightly from a discussion of the Bill, for which I ask the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's indulgence, I want to use the opportunity to raise the issue of the Department of Social Protection new application forms for social welfare payments in which it identifies the best methods of payment. It advises customers:

The Department recommends direct payment to your current, deposit or savings [account] in a financial institution. This is the best payment option for you as you can receive your payment at a time and a place that suits you. The account must be held in your name or jointly held by you.

If we are talking about protecting our post office network, how can the Minister with responsibility for the An Post network protect a service when another arm of the State is recommending to people methods of payment that will take away the key service provided by An Post which is the administration of social welfare payments? I am not sure if the Minister is aware of this but now that he is aware of it he needs to talk to his Cabinet colleague, the leader of his party and the Minister for Social Protection, so that she can instruct the Department of Social Protection to stop recommending these methods of payment. The service was put out to tender and An Post fairly won the tender to continue paying social welfare payments for another number of years. Customers should not now be advised to transfer to electronic transfer payment. There should not be a line on the social welfare application forms advising them that the best way to get their social welfare payment is by means of a bank or a building society. I appreciate the lenience of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and I will conclude.

I welcome the Bill which will clarify the issue of data protection. It is very important that people have confidence in the protection of their data. I note the concerns raised when the Government sought PPS numbers for the refund of the water charges and the justifiable uproar that caused. People were afraid of sharing a critical piece of personal information. This Bill clarifies that critical pieces of personal information will not be shared. I assume this has been confirmed by the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner. We are happy to support the Bill with a caveat concerning issues identified by the Irish freight industry and the emergency services with regard to the non-sequential post codes which they believe will create extra expense and chaos. The system has not been tried and tested and I hope that it will not spiral out of control like Irish Water.

It must have been about the early 2000s, long before I had any ambition or intention of coming to this place that I first heard in the news that Ireland was to have a postcode system. I thought that made obvious sense. I certainly did not think, back then, that I would be standing here today and saying to the Minister that I will not be able to support this potentially good idea. I need to outline the reasons I cannot offer that support.

Either the Minister or I, if we were taking on the portfolio he took on, would probably have asked the same questions I will ask. Discussion of a postcode system has probably been going on for at least 12 or 15 years. In theory it is a fairly simple concept. A system is required so that a vehicle, a person, a parcel or a letter, can get to an address in Ireland. There are several standard satnav systems and we all use them to help us to get from place to place. There are 31% unique addresses but there are different ways to handle those addresses. The original cost figure for the proposed system was €27 million. A package was available from at least one Irish company which the company offered for free. That offer was turned down for some reason. The figure of €27 million is a gross understatement, in my view, because when I asked for some information about how the records of the various Departments that will use this system would be made ready to use the Eircode codes, I will describe some of the responses I received but it is clear that money will need to be spent to get Departments in a position to use Eircode.

I asked what business problem or gap required such a complex non-standard - this is what we are talking about - addressing system. That is the first question that any business needs to ask. What problem am I trying to address by introducing this technology? If it is expensive technology one needs to have a very clear answer to that question. I have asked many times and I have not been able to get an answer to that very simple question. What business problem is being addressed and can only be addressed by a non-standard numbering sequence in a geo-locator system? I have been unable to get an answer to that most fundamental of questions.

The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources has projected the cost to the State of the project will be in the region of €27 million, although others have projected an even higher cost. When a project with a technical specification is being carried out it is an attempt to fix a clear problem that has been identified. I agree with the high level of discussion about the lack of a postcode system in Ireland.

I have not got an answer as to why an expensive, extensive and complex system such as this is being introduced. Although we are told Ireland is the only OECD country without a postcode system, that is not a good enough reason to spend so much money while overlooking technology and systems that are currently available, particularly if one of those systems is being offered for free.

There is a risk that this is an expensive vanity project. I can understand Ministers, politicians, civil servants and citizens feeling embarrassed that we are the only OECD country without a postcode system. However, I do not believe we need such a system to extend as far as the Government has brought it with this incarnation.

As the Minister has probably heard me say before, the role of management consultants constitutes another risk. Typically, management consultants would work with a business and would know what the business wanted to get from new technology. The consultants might help the business define its requirements more precisely and would thus be in a support role, putting into words the problem the business wanted to solve. Once that had been signed off, there would be a different set of consultants to translate the business requirements into a set of specifications, identifying the solution to the problem. The reason for having two separate sets of consultants is clear; it is to avoid the Stockholm syndrome of the management consultancy world, whereby the consultants are making the decisions even though somebody in the civil service is signing off on it. For very obvious reasons, multiple stages of the process, including identifying the problem, defining the requirements, preparing the functional side and how it is going to look, preparing the technical specifications, preparing the request for tenders, issuing the tenders, evaluating the tenders when they come back, doing the coding and implementing the system, should never, ever be done by the same set of management consultants. The Minister knows that cannot be right and knows the risks involved in having one company, or individuals from one company, involved all the way through this process. It is the gift that keeps on giving in the management consultancy world.

When I was speaking to some of the senior civil servants on this, although I cannot be sure, I believe I detected that they felt a less complex system would have done the job just as well. Satellite navigation companies such as Garmin work and are available. The expected cost of consultation on the project is projected to be in the region of €1.8 million. I have explained the advisability of breaking up the work among management consultants.

The cost to several Departments to prepare their systems to use Eircode remains undisclosed. Also unanswered is the question I put to a number of Departments as to how their operation will differ and how they will be able to work better with their records converted for Eircode. I asked a question of the Minister for Social Protection as to what the projected cost of implementing Eircode in her Department would be. In fact, I asked a lot of Departments, but got a response from the Minister for Social Protection. I will quote the response:

The initial phase will be completed in 2015. To this end, the project governance committee of the Department has approved the issue of a supplementary request for tender to a framework of approved bidders in order to implement the technical changes required to the IT systems of the Department. The associated costs of this initial phase will be known on completion of this technical work.

Although this response is not very clear, I think I know what it means, and what it would mean to a management consultant. Given all the people in receipt of social welfare, children's allowance and the whole range of social protection payments, the Department has a huge number of records that will need to be updated. If each of those now has to be allocated a random number, it will be a huge task. I know what is involved in converting computer records. There are duplicates and triplicates and it is a great effort. I believe the Minister for Social Protection is being fully truthful when she says she is not in a position to estimate precisely the cost of this work.

Here we are, launching Eircode to help Government agencies do their work better. Nobody has explained how that is going to happen, and we do not know how much it will cost the Government and the people for those agencies to get their systems up to a stage at which they can start using Eircode.

The Freight Transport Association of Ireland has raised serious concerns and has said it will not use the system. It is no use to them because it is not sequential; they cannot plan a journey around the order of deliveries. If it is no good to the people who are delivering the parcels here, there and everywhere, it is difficult to see how it can be of great benefit to the private market, apart from those marketers who want to send out flyers and that sort of thing.

I believe the HSE and the local authorities have said that it can and will work, yet the Irish Fire and Emergency Services Association, which represents front-line staff, has expressed serious concerns about the system because it does not identify small local areas. It will not be any help for emergency call-outs and accidents along the roads. The Eircode numbers will not be up on the street signs. Unless the person making the emergency call happens to know his or her Eircode number and is able to call it out, it will be of no help to those services.

I am concerned that a change in primary legislation is needed in order to ensure there is comprehensive data protection.

To me, this says there is something fundamentally flawed with the system we are trying to put in.

In a letter to the Minister, Digital Rights Ireland stated:

Our organization ... was happy to have been consulted by your officials and advisors in relation to the 'privacy impact assessment' for the eircode. We have deep concerns about the eircode initiative.

In relation to this meeting, Oireachtas Debates records the following statement by one of your officials:

As part of this [privacy impact assessment] we have spoken to many stakeholders. We have spoken to the National Consumer Agency, logistics companies and Digital Rights Ireland, with which we have had an in-depth conversation to see if there is anything in the proposal that might be considered to have an impact on anyone's privacy. Broadly, they are satisfied with what we are doing.

An observer might infer from this factual statement that Digital Rights Ireland was among the organisations which were 'broadly satisfied'. We are assured that this implication was not intended, and we would like to state clearly that this is not the case.

We want to state clearly that we are not at all 'satisfied' with the postcode that has been designed or the implementation proposals. Our view is that you are taking a dangerous and needless step into the unknown by going ahead with the code as currently proposed. We gave details of an immediate privacy problem that will present itself immediately after launch. We warned that the mitigating measures that the Department is proposing would not really help, and might even be a distraction from other critical project issues. We warned that the legal protections of the data protection regime would be largely unenforceable in the context of global Internet advertising networks.

Although 'eircode' is by no means the first postcode in the world to use code down to the individual house level, it is the first postcode anywhere to use this unstructured pseudo-random design. Simple changes would bring eircode into line with international best practice and would greatly alleviate the privacy concerns. Risks would still exist, but they could be managed and mitigated.

The letter goes on a little further, but right the way through is the message that Digital Rights Ireland continues to have very serious concerns over data protection in regard to the Eircode system. Although I and my party will oppose the Bill today, mathematics being mathematics, it will go through. However, I and my party will certainly be putting down amendments at a later stage.

I have probably said enough. I have been unable to establish what is the business problem that needed such a complex software system to address it. I do not understand how currently available software and a company that could have provided it were turned down, although the company offered it for free. I am very concerned at the role of management consultants throughout all the phases of this project. It is the gift that keeps on giving for management consultants. I am not saying it was abused but I am certainly arguing it was wide open to abuse and that the normal checks that should have been there were not there.

I am very annoyed that the request for tenders was designed in such a way that small and medium enterprises in Ireland simply could not afford to submit tenders. I know a case was made to the EU on this and that, while it did not say there was a breach that would cause the tender process to be re-run, the EU did advise the Government that it should do it in a different way in future. I understand the EU is still in contact with the Department on that issue. Effectively, the design of the tender form precluded small Irish companies from tendering for this work, reinforcing what I was saying about the continuous involvement of management consultants through all of the phases of a project.

I hope it works. This country needs a postcode system. However, we could have done it a lot more simply. If I had been in the Minister's place, I would have stopped what was an ill-conceived start. Everything the Minister goes to do will be flawed and it will cost this country an awful lot more money than we currently think it will. I believe it will cost us a small fortune to get all the records of the other Departments ready. It is a bit scary that the other Departments do not know how much it is going to cost but at least they are being truthful about the fact they do not know. Even at this late stage, I would have gone back to basics on this one. I would have taken the advice of the independent management consultants and the State-established body, which said we do not need this randomly assigned number and we do not need this complexity within the system, that there is an easier way to do it and that the technology is already there. I would have taken that advice and worked on it.

I will be opposing the Bill, although I know it will pass despite my opposition. I will be submitting amendments on the next Stage.

I call Deputy Thomas Pringle, who is sharing time with Deputies Clare Daly, Mick Wallace and John Halligan.

This Bill seeks to address data protection issues around the introduction of a postal code service. Data protection is in need of real safeguards, especially as the digital economy expands and the threat of surveillance and citizen scrutiny grows simultaneously with it. Embracing technological advances can seem intimidating, but the digital economy demands that we get smarter with our information. Ireland is the only European country and one of a few OECD countries that does not have a national postcode system of some kind, as the Minister outlined in his introduction. The introduction of this proposed system will change that completely, making Ireland the first country to have a system of unique postcodes. It is already cited as a world first and future-proofed, and despite a few objections to the introduction of this system, most people seem reasonably in favour.

I understand that two models were up for consideration: a cluster-based, non-unique postcode system, similar to the one used in the UK, and a unique identifier system in which postcodes would consist of seven randomised characters assigned uniquely to each address in the State. The Department determined that the cluster-based, non-unique postcode system was not suitable for Ireland because of the exceptional situation in rural Ireland with regard to non-unique addresses, with up to 60% of addresses in rural areas being non-unique. In Donegal, for example, this includes situations in which there is more than one person in a townland with the same name and address and, as any Deputy from a rural constituency knows, the current system relies heavily on the use of local knowledge to deliver a letter, parcel or service.

The more I look into this proposal, the less I see its relevance. I say this because the success of this system depends on the level of uptake among the business community and the population. However, there will be no legal obligation on private organisations or businesses to use Eircode, as it is known. An Post will not be making the use of the Eircode mandatory and expects never to make it mandatory. Furthermore, it is up to individuals themselves to use the code or not to use it. Because local knowledge has been an integral part of the delivery service, there will be confusion about adopting this code. While the routing key will be used to help sort mail, it is not directly linked to counties, towns or geographic features. Therefore, many people may be surprised that their code has no relation to their actual location and their neighbour might have an entirely different arrangement of numbers. While Donegal people might expect "DL" to be part of the code, this will not be the case.

If this type of system is being used mainly to cater for the large number of non-unique addresses in rural Ireland, how does the Government expect the system to become the norm in service provision, which is reliant on addresses, and communities that are reliant on local knowledge?

Concerns have been expressed that Eircode will not be any more helpful than traditional addresses in helping to find the scenes of accidents and incidents because each code will be randomly created. Unless a caller knows the postcode of the location they are in no nearby postcode will be of any use as it will not bear any relation to the one they are trying to direct emergency groups to. Some freight and courier firms have objected to the use of this code because their delivery system is based around a cluster system. They feel that when dealing with bulk deliveries a randomised code would not work alongside their information systems and that there would probably be compatibility problems in trying to interpret the database that will be available on the internet to find addresses and postcodes.

Meath County Council has also objected to its introduction because it claims other already available information systems exist which are more appropriate to the work it does. For example, Loc8 is a service which can help locate illegal dumping and icy roads, which is vital information for local authorities. Other satellite versions can provide relevant information according to users.

I welcome the introduction of technological advances to service provision, especially in our public services, as long as the service remains committed to the needs of the community. We do not want to see what is currently happening with An Post, where proposed innovative solutions in service provision are in fact disempowering a vital institution.

The Government could commit more to working with the Irish Postmasters’ Union to promote its role in an ever-changing and modernising society. One such way is to engage in the development of a standard bank account to be provided through the network. This would initially need State funding. Considering the proposed cost of Eircode, I cannot see why a project like a standard bank account could not be supported as well.

The previous Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, said a Government sub-committee was set up to expand and develop the post office network and service. However, the Government’s move towards direct electronic transfer of welfare payments is a technological advancement which is disempowering a public service provider. In recent days, the Department of Social Protection has changed its forms for social welfare applications to direct people to avail of electronic payments to banks and move them away from post offices. How does that fit in with the views of the Minister and the sub-committee on post office services and how to develop and expand them? It does not fit and it moves those who are outside the banking system into it, which does not benefit them. It also undermines the roll-out of the standard bank account that has been approved by the Department of Finance, which has been reluctant to include the post office in the scheme.

The Government's move towards electronic transfer payments is essentially removing this business from post offices and handing it to the commercial banks. Hundreds of offices will close if we move fully towards direct electronic transfer. This move also transfers the cost of the payment to welfare recipients, through bank charges, while collection is without cost at post offices.

In terms of data protection, which the Bill addresses, the previous Data Protection Commissioner, Billy Hawkes, stated before he stepped down that he was concerned that a single code for each house risked possible data privacy breaches. There was a number of concerns that the code could be considered as part of an individual’s personal information.

The unique seven character postcode goes beyond what is an address. Through the use of modern technology and big data, it can be easily assimilated into any sort of electronic device or dataset which could in turn be used for any purpose from State intervention to commercial profit. I am glad to see a provision in the Bill which places the requirement on the postal contractor and re-sellers to publish on their websites privacy notices informing the public of, amongst other things, the background to postcodes and the source of types of data included in the postcode databases.

I also welcome the establishment of a complaints procedure by the postal contractor and the preparation of a code of practice concerning the retention of data related to postcode databases by the postal contractor. However, if we had not introduced such a unique system, all of the cumbersome administration to use a postcode system would not be required. There are downsides because the system will have to be policed and managed. There will probably be a large volume of complaints to the Data Protection Commissioner about the use or potential misuse of these codes.

While this Bill is a positive attempt at modernising the post service, at closer inspection the application of the postcode model risks becoming redundant. I also question how the Government is thinking. Is it thinking local or global? Are we certain that Eircode will be relevant to rural dwellers? Will it be useful to them, especially when local knowledge is so much a part of the current system?

If the Government is thinking globally then I feel this world-first and future-proof model risks missing the point if it is not picked up by enough stakeholders. Other less risky initiatives could make Ireland more modern and up-and-coming, such as investing widely in broadband, something we constantly raise in the House.

We sometimes ask ourselves what we are doing here. Today is a very good example of that. We debated the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill earlier, for which citizens had to wait over four years. Many people are desperately seeking pieces of legislation which have been promised, such as the adoption tracing Bill and other areas where there has been no progress. We are discussing this Bill on a Thursday afternoon. The only reason it is necessary is the appalling design of the Eircode system and the fact that it will be administered by a private entity.

The new Eircode system, which the Government seems intent on delivering, will furnish every household in Ireland with a seven digit unique identifier. This is a system quite unlike any other postcode system in use anywhere in the world. We are having this debate because of the serious privacy concerns around the idea of having a unique identifier, and this Bill is supposed to address the data protection concerns as a result of that. If the Government had not pursued the project in the first place, that would not have been necessary.

Many Deputies have asked, very validly, why the Government is doing this. Freight industry representatives told an Oireachtas joint committee in November 2014 that as a national postcode Eircode lacks vision, imagination, ambition and, most of all, practicality. They said it was of no use to them and that there was no logic to it, and described it as being like another Irish Water. An Post has said it will continue to deliver without Eircode. The chairman of the Irish Fire and Emergency Services Association has said that the codes may be catastrophic in terms of sending emergency services to the wrong location.

If it is not compulsory to use the codes, if the emergency services are not enthusiastic about them and the kinds of business the codes are supposed to make life easier for do not want them, why are we doing it? This is costing €27 million for a private multinational company, Capita, to implement. Many schools, individuals and projects would desperately want and need €27 million to engage in work or offset the difficulties resulting from the cutbacks in delivering services. I do not see where we are going with this.

There are very serious privacy concerns around the issue. The Office of the Data Protection Commissioner in its 2013 annual report stated as much because, as it said, it can be easily assimilated into sort of electronic device or data set which could, in turn, be used for any purpose ranging from State services to commercial exploitation, which is a major issue. The Minister and Government have said that they have engaged repeatedly with the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner over their concerns, but I am not sure this Bill overcomes those concerns or issues regarding people's data and privacy.

As Deputy Colreavy said, Digital Rights Ireland has consistently said it has deep concerns about the privacy implications of Eircode. There is no doubt that one of reasons for this would inevitably be the fact that it has been handled by Capita. Let us examine this, because it is part of this Government having become wedded to privatisation and outsourced companies. Capita is a large company with an annual turnover of just under €5 billion last year. It is not a charity. The Eircode system will be run with the same type of profit-making efficiency under which these companies operate.

The public will end up paying €27 million to a massive multinational conglomerate to design a postcode system that has been roundly criticised by everybody and one we do not have to use in the first place. One could not make this lunacy up.

Small businesses, if they want to use it, will have to pay. There have been many reassurances that the amount they have to pay will not be much. I will put that back to the Minister in two ways. First, €180 per ten users per year for access just to addresses - not the longitudinal or latitudinal information - is not cheap for simple database access. Second, what assurances do we have that these prices will not go up? The Minister does not control Capita. What obligation is there under this system to make it cheap and accessible to users, not to mind the fact that ordinary citizens can look up no more than 15 Eircodes per day before they will have to start paying for access? As we do not have any real guarantees around pricing, then it is possible that Eircodes will give an advantage to large businesses and so forth.

One of the significant problems with this is the issue of the Eircodes being proprietary, which is absolute lunacy and against all best practice. At the end of the ten-year contract, the State will presumably have to buy back the database of addresses or put it out to tender to another company. Nobody but Capita can scrutinise, use or build on the database it has built to improve it and make more efficient. Any changeover at the end of the contract will be difficult, as the next contract holder will have to spend a large amount of money to get it working up to speed.

Accordingly, why is this database not an open source, which is the norm in these cases? Open-source software is robust, popular and more transparent. Why are we implementing a brand new system using proprietary software?

The company in charge of this system, Capita, is well-known in Britain as a byword for inefficiency. The satirical magazine Private Eye christened the company “Crapita” as a result of its appalling work, yet we are giving €27 million of taxpayers’ money to it. For example, the Vale of White Horse District Council in Oxfordshire outsourced its finance function to Capita at a cost of £9.1 million. In the ensuing chaos, staff did not get paid, councillors did not get their expenses reimbursed, and the council was threatened with having its electricity cut off. Capita developed Birmingham City Council’s website but the delivery was three years late and more than 300% over budget. Capita was responsible for the disastrous Criminal Records Bureau, which assigned criminal records to thousands of people who had never had them in the first place. It also overran the budget by £150 million. The UK education Minister claimed it was responsible for schools not opening because they were not able to vet teachers properly. When it took over Lambeth’s housing benefit section in a ten-year contract, after four years there was a backlog of 55,000 claims, with up to 100 people made homeless by the company’s failure to process their claims on time.

Seriously, why are we here today looking at the contract to facilitate this private company when we already have an open postcode system? It is a waste of money and time. There are far better projects to pursue with €27 million than handing it over to a private multinational company with a record like this.

It is difficult to say yet what the long-term implications will be of using the unique code to identify each individual house in the State. Based on my reading of the Bill, the introduction of the postcode system has some merits, not least the unique identifier which will allow ambulances and other emergency services to get to an address quickly. Precious minutes could be saved in matters of life and death, particularly in rural areas.

There is no doubt that the identifier will also be of significant benefit to State services, making it easier for the Revenue Commissioners, for example, to collect taxes and other charges. I imagine Irish Water will welcome access to such a database with open arms. With regards to privacy, I am not satisfied, like other Members, that the concerns of the Data Protection Commission about individual house coding have been adequately addressed. The requirements for the code were revised without consultation in 2010. There is merited concern that modern technology could be used to create dataset information on people’s addresses which could be used for many purposes, including for State services and for commercial exploitation. This is not acceptable. The awarding of individual codes to each address is contrary to advice given by the Data Protection Commissioner. Will the Minister clarify whether the move from the original proposal for an area-based code to an individual code was driven by commercial pressures? It appears to me that this may very well be the case.

What has been proposed in this country is unprecedented anywhere else in the world. The argument has repeatedly been made by the Government that an area-based postcode would not necessarily raise major data protection issues. Has a full privacy impact assessment been carried out to assess these implications? If not, will the Minister carry out such an assessment? It is a reasonable request from those in the Opposition. It is still not too late to lock the stable door after the horse has bolted.

How much has been spent on consultants on this project? Is the consultant spend separate from the €25.6 million we have been told will be the overall cost? My information says it is. Why is further expertise, above the €25.6 million figure, necessary to oversee a system that we are told is ready to roll out?

A key legacy of this Government will be the privatisation - or, as it is more politely called, the external service delivery - of our public services. In the four years since the coalition took the reins, we have witnessed the outsourcing of countless essential health care services, said goodbye to the State’s share in our national airline and stood over the privatisation of Bord Gáis, to name but a few. Added to this, the indiscriminate cutting of essential services through austerity measures has left many people with no real option but to turn to the private sector. Irish properties are being sold by NAMA way below their value to vulture funds from the US which very often turn them over shortly afterwards for ridiculous profits, while 100,000 people wait for scant social housing. This legislation proposes to effectively privatise the national address system.

One matter on which we can commend the Government is its dedication to consistently upholding its neoliberal philosophy and programme. According to the Minister’s response to a parliamentary question I tabled last week, the company awarded the tender for the national address system, Capita Business Support Services Ireland, has been paid €12 million, excluding VAT, to date for the development and roll-out of Eircode. The Minister stated that the contract is expected to cost €16 million, excluding VAT, in total, plus €1.2 million a year for the remainder of the licence period, amounting to €27 million in total for implementation. These figures do not include the millions of euro spent on consultations on this issue since 2003. The Freight Transport Association of Ireland estimates €80 million to be a more realistic overall cost. Will the Minister confirm his figures for this?

The frenzied selling off of public goods has been touted by this Administration as a good in itself, a cost-cutting measure that will increase efficiency and improve standards of delivery.

SIPTU disagrees, but its warnings that outsourcing could actually result in higher costs on the Exchequer have fallen on deaf ears. Capita Ireland is part of a £7 billion multinational corporation, a company which over the past decade has made a sport out of collecting Government contracts in the UK. Capita has almost completely taken over local council service provision in the London borough of Barnet and in doing so will conveniently not have to put up with the same kind of scrutiny as democratic government. Training courses, which under the local authority would have been provided in-house for minimal cost, are now carried out by Capita at much higher prices. For example, a day’s training for one person on the taking of minutes now costs the taxpayer in the Barnet area £800.

Last week, Aditya Chakrabortty wrote, in an article in The Guardian addressing this issue:

[That] an arm of Britain’s local government has in effect agreed to a friendly takeover by a £7bn multinational. Whoever Barnet residents vote for in local elections, they will always get Capita. Whenever they phone or email or visit, they will speak to a Capita employee. The FTSE giant will face no competition for the next decade; nor will it endure the same scrutiny as democratic government, as previously public information is veiled under “commercial sensitivity”.

I hope the Minister is a little concerned that the private sector would not always deliver quite as well for the citizen as the public sector. James Meek, in describing the situation in the UK, could have easily been referring to Ireland when he stated:

The privatisation, disaggregation and foreign takeover of Britain’s universal networks since Thatcher has enabled the great lie of the post-Thatcher era, that tax has fallen, when in reality the tax burden has simply been shifted from progressive taxes on income, where the wealthy pay more, to the flat fees for private universal networks such as water, energy and transport, where the poorer pay more. The original principle of universal networks - that society as a whole would provide a service for everyone, through a levy proportionate to each citizen’s means - has been turned on its head.

Perhaps the most unbelievable part of the Eircode venture is the fact that millions of euro of taxpayers’ money is being pumped into a system that will be inaccessible to many people. The randomised sequencing of the postcodes, which is not done in any other European country, means that to make sense of an Eircode, a user will have to pay to access a commercially licensed database. Like many services in the country, this is all fine if one can afford to pay. Big business is favoured while the SMEs lose out. Furthermore, as the service is not compulsory, many people will not bother using it. Several industry players have identified Eircode as having little, if any, added value. In fact, the Freight Transport Association of Ireland, which represents 200 freight businesses, has stated it will not use Eircode.

Luckily for the Government, it can justify its decisions by the fact that there was some manner of consultation process on Eircode, but how can a consultation process be in any way meaningful if the advice of the State-appointed national postcodes project board and private consultancies for a hierarchical postcode system is ignored? The 2010 report on postcodes by the Oireachtas joint committee called for a self-financing public code. Again, this was ignored. We have seen this in the case of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Bill, which is going through the House. God knows how it will turn out, but it is very hard for us to be optimistic.

An Post has named Eircode a "20th century solution to a 21st century problem". Surely this €27 million, or up to €80 million if the cost of consultants is included, could have been more effectively allocated. With 220 post offices having been closed down in Ireland since 2006, more support could be given to the rural communities which have been abandoned. What good is some random postcode to an elderly person who due to post office closures has to try to find a lift to pick up his or her pension?

In April, I addressed the issues of the post offices with the Minister. In his reply he stated that he was conscious of the importance of a vibrant post office network. He also stated that we must ensure that post office network services are commercially viable as well as socially significant. I do not do parish pump politics. I do not even have clinics, but people contact my office here from villages such as Tomhaggard, Pallas, Crossabeg, Ballymurn, Gusserane, Ballycarney, Ballyhoe, Castledockrell, Duncormick, Ballymitty and Rathnure. They want to know why, if the Minister believes what he said in his reply to me, he does not reopen their post offices. I am firmly of the belief that it would not cost a fortune to do so. I agree that doing so would probably not make money, but would it provide a very worthwhile service? It probably would, and it would mean a lot to these people. The Minister does not need me to tell him, even though he lives in Dublin, as I do most of the time, that rural communities are struggling to survive. The post office means a lot to them, particularly older people who have less access to computers and banking. As we know, the banks are far more geared towards and focused on turning profits than providing services. The day of the bank providing a service is long gone and the post office can fill this role well.

It may be said that not every community needs one and that one cannot be put everywhere because it is not economically sustainable, and that while they are good socially, if they are not economically sustainable it is not possible to keep them all open, but I would like the Government to look at what it would cost to do so. I know An Post has a mandate not to lose money, but the Government has a mandate to provide a service to the people. I would like the Government to look at the prospect of reopening the post offices it has closed and see what it would cost and if it could afford to do so, because we make choices and it is not that we do not have any money. I know money does not grow on trees, even if it is made from paper, although plastic is used a bit more now, but a post office network represents value for money in a social sense. The Government did not start this - Fianna Fáil did - and I would not blame the Government one bit for not taking lectures from Fianna Fáil on this, because it closed more post offices than the Government, but if the Government would examine this and ask whether it could afford to reopen the post offices, it would be brilliant.

The Bill we are discussing is a follow-up consolidation and amendment of the Communications Regulation (Postal Services) Act 2011. It will achieve a number of fundamental objectives. It will ensure personal data is fully protected during and after the implementation and licensing of the new national postcode system. The Bill will provide a statutory footing for specified legitimate postcode activities which are fundamental to the establishment and implementation of the postcode project. It provides additional safeguards for the legitimate interests of owners and occupiers of properties. It does this by providing the Minister with powers to set down requirements that businesses must satisfy before they can be granted a licence to use the postcodes. It also provides owners and occupiers of properties with a right to correction of any inaccurate information held in a postcode database, and there is also an appeals system. It provides clarity to the user of the postcode database with regard to fair processing and accuracy. It will effectively mean the operation of the new postal code system will be in compliance with the Data Protection Acts 1983 to 2003.

Ireland is the only country in the European Union without a postcode system and this legislation will bring it in line with European and international markets. It is a modernising exercise and it reflects the contemporary situation in most countries. The need for it is emphasised by the fact that 35% of our addresses are not unique. In townlands where there is a multiplicity of the same name or where there are variations of townland names, confusion is created. It is vital as a modernising exercise.

Capita Business Support Services was awarded a ten-year contract in 2013 to develop and implement a national postcode system. Its overall aim is to ensure that by 2015 every address in Ireland will receive a unique Eircode, a seven-character code comprising letters and numbers. It will also support a launch and awareness campaign. There are some reservations about the plan, such as those set out by Deputy Mick Wallace, but while he put forward an interesting critique of the proposal he proposes no solutions to deal with any of the issues. I do not see how he can suggest an alternative method of doing this other than by bringing in a company like Capita.

The main issue in this legislation is data protection. I will briefly address the legislation before making a few points about post offices. Section 66A of the legislation states that the Minister of the day has the power to set down specific requirements for any business or company which seeks to use the new postcode database. Subsection (1) states that the Minister can decide to attach specific conditions to a licence granted to a postcode contractor which will ensure that the privacy of the owners and occupiers of the individual property is safeguarded. Privacy is at a premium and data protection legislation and this legislation allow the Minister to support that objective. There is also the option for any individual to correct inaccurate information held within the postcode database.

There are also reservations around the future of An Post in light of these changes. The regulatory impact analysis carried out on the legislation found that, although the new legislation will permit competitors to enter the market through open competition, it is likely that An Post will continue to be what we all want it to be - a dominant player in the letter post market for the immediate future. The national postcode project board found that the introduction of postcodes would increase mail volume, which is a positive finding in light of the legitimate fear for our post offices.

The postcodes will facilitate the location of all addresses that are non-unique. They will make it easier for consumers to shop online and will assist the development of Irish online commerce. Online shopping and e-trading are very important. They are very much part of the landscape and we have to be able to participate as it is crucial for our economic development that we modernise our economy. This will allow for a better delivery of public services, particularly the emergency services, and testimonials from the emergency services support that thesis. Some 35% of addresses in Ireland are not unique. In the constituency I have the privilege of representing, Cavan-Monaghan, we have a lot of the same names for areas and a lot of confusion around addresses, and this makes for difficulties in the form of late deliveries and wrong deliveries, which the postcodes will alleviate. I welcome this legislation for the fact that it will modernise the delivery system in my constituency of Cavan-Monaghan. Despite what Deputy Wallace said, Nightline, a major courier service, has stated that it will greatly improve the prospects for its work.

I am very concerned for the future of our post offices and I know the Minister, Deputy Alex White, is extremely proactive on this issue. Some 3,700 people work in the post office sector, including 700 local postmasters. They are, in effect, local SMEs and they are very important. I ask the Minister and the Cabinet to ensure we deliver social welfare payments through the post offices and to look into whether post offices could be equipped with a banking function. It is crucial for this country, not only the towns and villages but big cities too, that we preserve our post offices and make them viable. Although not specific to the legislation, this is very much relevant to the entire debate, and I would like the Minister to address the future of post offices in his reply. I am very anxious to preserve all our post offices in Cavan-Monaghan.

This Government has a very good record on post offices, contrary to the distortions and propaganda for which certain people are responsible. It is sad to close even one post office, but we have closed only approximately 20 post offices nationally, in contrast to the previous administrations, which closed over 200. Thankfully, closures have been at a minimum in Cavan-Monaghan, although there have been a few which we greatly regret. Post offices are always painful to lose. They are central to the fabric of our communities and the post office is the lifeblood of our community. Rather than closing post offices, I would like us to reopen some that have been closed and maintain the viability of the ones that remain.

The Government is taking them all away.

We should enable the post offices to offer banking and other services such as electronic social welfare payments. That is only a proposition, but it is possible. Deputy Troy has a passion for these things and for rural Ireland but he will have to accept that our record on this issue stands up very well. I am interested to hear what the response of the Minister will be. We talk about job creation, but job retention is of equal importance, and if we can preserve the 3,700 people working in our post office network it will be a wonderful achievement. I hope we can do that and that we can add services to our post offices. I consider it a priority for Government and I am anxious to be reassured on that score.

I thank the Acting Chairman for allowing me to address the question. We have to modernise our country by introducing a postcode system. We must ensure data protection and efficiency in the way private data are dealt with and, in the process, protect and enhance our post offices.

I welcome the Minister. Before speaking on this legislation, I wish to counter some of the claims made by my constituency colleague, Deputy Troy. In the interest of clarity, it must be noted that between 2005 and 2010 Fianna Fáil closed 288 post offices. Since then, only two post offices have closed nationwide.

We should have full attendance in the House for such an important issue, so I call a quorum.

If the Deputy resumes his seat, we will call a quorum.

I refer to the misinformation given to this House earlier.

Quiet, please, Deputy. We are calling a quorum.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

For posterity and for the record of this House, it must be noted that between 2005 and 2010, Fianna Fáil closed 288 post offices. However-----

It closed 288 post offices. Since we took over, only 22 post offices have closed nationwide. The Longford-Westmeath constituency backs up this statistic. Since 2011 there has been no post office closure in either county, whereas over the three-year period from 2005 to 2008, Fianna Fáil managed to close six offices in Westmeath and three in Longford.

Deputy Troy also asked the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, to stop sending out letters from her Department with a clear recommendation to use commercial banks in preference to using the post offices. Once again, the Deputy is a few weeks behind with his remarks. A number of weeks ago, Granard, Newtownforbes, Kilbeggan and other post offices alerted me to the existence of these letters. I went directly to the Minister and raised my strong concerns. I then criticised the letters, and this was well documented in local media. Following my representations to the Minister, Deputy Burton, and my vocal criticism, she made clear to me in late March that no more such letters would be issued. Therefore, I suggest the Deputy refrain from asking the Minister to stop sending out letters that have already ceased to exist. He should perhaps take a leaf out of my book and request that the Department of Social Protection write to all individuals who received these letters, clearly outlining the limitations and restrictions that their local banks have put in place when it comes to accessing their pension payments. This would be a more constructive approach to take.

This legislation essentially sets out to protect personal data during and after the implementation and licensing of the new national postcode system, which is due to be rolled out during the summer. There has been much discussion about the possible benefits and downsides to the introduction of the new Eircode system. I believe the benefits of the system outweigh any potential negatives. Those of us who are supportive of Eircode will argue that the new system will bring benefits to consumers, businesses and rural communities while improving the delivery of public services. It will become easier to shop online, which has the knock-on effect of progressing the development of Irish online commerce. Eircode will also make it easier for emergency services to locate addresses, particularly in rural areas.

As a rural Deputy, I have come across many instances in which emergency vehicles have lost valuable minutes trying to find the location of a rural home. The introduction of Eircode will be of huge benefit to emergency services. Rural and urban homes will receive a unique code, which means any emergency vehicle can easily find its way to an individual's home as quickly as possible. The director of the national ambulance service, Martin Dunne, alluded to this benefit when he said "Eircode will assist in the rapid identification of non-unique addresses." There are many such addresses throughout the country.

At present, this Government is doing a lot to ensure we have a modern national infrastructure. The Minister is ensuring the roll-out of fibre broadband to rural areas and the upgrading of roads to our major urban centres, which means that communication links are becoming much stronger. Therefore, it makes sense that Ireland's postcode system follows these advances and upgrades to a modern and sustainable system. It will ensure there is greater accuracy when it comes to addresses. The days of explaining to delivery people or taxi drivers that they have to go through the crossroads, take the second left, turn right at the T-junction and the house is fourth on the right will be gone. Eircode will direct anybody directly to the front door thanks to a simple seven-digit code.

Eircode will also have a positive impact on business. To highlight rural Ireland once again, it is very common for townlands to have a number of households with the same surname. This has always provided a challenge with regard to the proper delivery of services to a rural location. Eircode plans to combat this through the provision of the unique identification numbers, which will cater for the 35% of addresses in Ireland without a name or a number. This will surely improve the logistics of a business in terms of optimising routes and delivery schedules. I urge all business owners to ensure they are properly prepared for Eircode. The amount of preparation will vary depending on the size of the business, but little things like displaying the business's Eircode on customer forms, websites, social media or anywhere the business address is shown will help ensure a business is prepared for Eircode. The success of Eircode for businesses will be as a result of the wide-ranging consultations that the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources has held with An Post, commercial delivery companies and other stakeholders to ensure that their needs and the needs of their customers are adequately matched.

While I am on my feet, I will say that it is very important that we provide additional services at post offices. This would save the taxpayer a significant amount of money, estimated at somewhere in the region of €53 million. It would help businesses and save jobs. I am extremely anxious, as I have said time and again, to see rural post offices across the country maximised and strengthened. I know the Minister is working on this and I would like to see it happening. The Grant Thornton report on the future of the post office network in Ireland highlights the benefits of making motor tax payments, additional financial transactions, and household and hospital charges payable at post offices. This could save the country a great deal of money, it would bring real reform and it would strengthen the whole concept of the post office. It is very important that we increase the role of the post offices across the country. A post office is more than just a service; it is a community facility.

People meet and congregate in post offices. This is an important part of the fabric of rural life, and such interaction needs to be developed and encouraged.

The introduction of the new Eircode system will bring significant benefits to customers and businesses while improving the delivery of public services. The improving and upgrading of our infrastructure is a welcome move and will be extremely beneficial for our rural communities.

Deputy Boyd Barrett is sharing time with Deputies Paul Murphy and Tom Fleming. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is agreed, but Deputy Murphy definitely will not be here and Deputy Fleming is not here.

Deputy Boyd Barrett has 20 minutes. If Deputy Fleming arrives the Deputies can work out the sharing of the time slot between them.

I do not think I will use the 20 minutes provided.

The Bill may well merit a 20-minute contribution, but one has to cover many bases when one is a member of a small party. I have not had enough time to examine this legislation, but I am pretty concerned about it. I can see the case for having a postcode system that is uniform and allows people in business, or others who for any reason need to communicate with people or get to places, to find those places. I can see the logic of that, but I worry about the way we are doing this and the system that is being put in place. I am open to correction on certain aspects of it but, based on what I have seen and what I understand this to be about, I am quite concerned about it.

The Minister, in his opening speech, said that Ireland was the only country in Europe that did not have a national postcode system. Fair enough, but we will now be the only country in Europe that has a national postcode system with individualised addresses. We are going from one extreme to the other. Already a number of people, including the Data Protection Commissioner, have raised concerns about data protection and privacy issues. I share those concerns. It all smacks a little too much of Big Brother. There will be a database with individualised addresses which will be controlled by a private multinational corporation. That is kind of Orwellian. I do not see why it is necessary. I understand the critics of this scheme say that the norm is to have postcodes based on clusters, not based on individualised addresses, and that is generally the case across Europe. The cluster model meets the requirement to have a standardised postcode system but it does not bring it right down to individualised addresses, with every dwelling or business having an individual postcode on a centralised database controlled by a multinational corporation. I am concerned about that aspect, and that is a concern that has been raised by the Data Protection Commissioner and others.

I understand the company, Capita, that will implement the system does not have a great history. I was informed - Deputy Daly may have said this earlier, and it is amusing in a way - that Private Eye dubbed this company "Crapita" because it made such a mess of other systems in which it was involved in the UK, where it mis-assigned people to certain categories and so on. That is not very encouraging now that this company has been awarded the contract. Small and medium enterprises have been very critical of the fact that they were excluded from the tendering process for the postcode system. The contractor to be awarded the project was required to have a turnover above a certain threshold. Domestic small and medium-sized enterprises that might have wanted to bid for the contract, as some of them did, were excluded from tendering for it, as I understand it, because of the tendering conditions. Instead, the contract was awarded to a big multinational. That seems unfair on those companies, and it would further add to my concerns in that we are placing the contract in the hands of an anonymous multinational over which we have very little control.

The other aspect about which I am concerned is the charges that will apply. While householders are not to be charged at this stage, small businesses will be charged €10 a month. The officials might nod to affirm whether I am correct on that. There will be a charge for accessing the database to obtain more than a certain number of addresses or postcodes, which I believe is 15. One might say these are relatively modest fees, and there are none for ordinary householders at this stage, but will it stop at that? It is a little bit like water charges. Once the system is established, can the charges be increased, and if so, by how much? Could this become just another money-making racket at the expense of ordinary householders and small businesses? That would be a significant concern as well.

Has the Government worked out an impact assessment with regard to employment among postmen or among staff of small businesses generally? I am concerned that this system is setting up the infrastructure to get rid of the local postman or woman - perhaps not immediately, but it lays the ground for that. It may be a sentimental view on my part, and I do not live in the countryside, but even out my way in Dún Laoghaire, the local postman or woman, who knows where people in the area live, is a human point of connection between one's family and the postal system. I like that, and I would not like to see it replaced. It is one of the characteristics of this country that is worth keeping and protecting. I wonder if this system essentially lays the basis for the privatisation, much more centralisation and so-called efficiency in the area of postal and parcel delivery and communications generally, which will ultimately usurp the local postman or woman.

All of this will cost us €27 million. One wonders whether that is a good expenditure on something about which there has been significant concern and the benefits of which will substantially go to a multinational. Indeed, this seems intended to facilitate multinationals more generally in terms of postal communications. I am concerned and sceptical about this project as the Minister has presented it.

In January, the Minister confirmed that the estimated cost of the Eircode project would be €27 million, excluding VAT. This includes the design, database upgrades, communications and postcode distribution. Data protection concerns surrounding the introduction of a national postcode system were highlighted by the former Data Protection Commissioner early in its development. In particular, a unique postcode can be considered to be part of an individual's personal data in certain circumstances. As a result of the use of modern technology and "big data", a postcode could be assimilated into an electronic device or dataset where it could be used for any purpose. The Minister has indicated that data protection concerns have led to the insertion of data protection provisions into the contract between him and the postcode contractor, Capita Ireland, and the drafting of the Communications Regulation (Postal Service) (Amendment) Bill 2015.

The introduction of unique postcodes has received mixed responses from stakeholders. Some, such as An Post and Nightline, are fully supportive while others, such as the National Transport Authority, NTA, do not believe that it provides the optimal version of a national postcode system. Others like Digital Rights Ireland have continued to express concerns regarding policy issues such as data protection. The Bill will, therefore, provide a framework to address data protection concerns and pave the way for the implementation of Eircode later this summer. The implementation of Eircode will be accompanied by a public information campaign, which I welcome.

Ireland is the only country in the EU and OECD that does not have a national postcode system. Eircode has been described as being far more than just a postcode. It has been dubbed a smart location code that will identify an individual address, rural or urban, and show exactly where it is located. Each postal address in the State, including apartments and businesses, will receive a unique postcode. This is in contrast to other countries where postcodes tend to define clusters or groups of addresses. I am glad to see that the relevant senior Minister, Deputy White, is present for the debate on this important project. He has stated that the introduction of Eircode will be a major advance, including for business and the community in general.

In 2010, the Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources commented that there was an anomaly in the Commissioner's line of reasoning, in that urban dwellers were easily identified by way of house numbers and street names while rural dwellers were not so easily identified. The joint committee, the current version of which I am a member of, further commented that it was difficult to envision how the privacy of the urban dweller as well as the rural dweller could be safeguarded. We hope that provisions will be put in place to ensure strong safeguards.

The main problem with a database-driven postcode is that, to use it, one needs access to the database. For persons out and about, this means that they must either have copies of the database on handheld computers or smartphones or they must have access to the database using over-the-air connections. It has been reported that the full Eircode database will be in the region of 2 GB in size. Just to put that in perspective, the full NAVTEQ database of maps and postcodes for all of Europe is approximately 2 GB. If our database ends up at 2 GB, the vast majority of satnav devices already in use will not be able to hold the Eircode database and detailed maps of Ireland. These technicalities must be addressed to make the system fit for purpose for the general public.

Since Eircode postcodes will be secret, one will not know a neighbour's or stranger's code without being told it. If one happens to be a tourist on a drive in a rural area who comes across a house on fire, one may have no means of directing the emergency services to the location. No possibility exists with Eircode to generate a code on the spot unlike algorithm-based codes, which offer this feature. Eircode postcodes could cost lives, either directly because of errors or indirectly because a better system could improve response times, leading to more lives being saved. We must ensure that what we are doing through this Bill does not lead to such fatalities. We must rejig the system to make it safe. It can be done.

A major advantage that Loc8 codes have over Eircode is that the zone and locality codes are logically rather than randomly assigned. This means that delivery drivers or emergency service personnel will be able to learn the zone or locality structures that apply to their areas of responsibility. Another significant plus over Eircode is that the full and locality versions of the Loc8 code include a checker digit that helps to detect common human errors. Loc8 codes are ideal for emergency services in particular. A dwelling-based postcode is only useful for emergencies that occur in and close to dwellings, but many incidents occur away from dwellings, such as cliff, mountaineering and potholing accidents, farm accidents, forestry accidents, missing persons, light aircraft crashes etc. The Loc8 code can help in these situations, as any location on the island of Ireland can be given such a code. Eircode postcodes are particularly useful when reporting issues relating to dwellings, but for many of the day-to-day problems experienced by utility companies and local authorities, Eircode is useless. Using Loc8 codes, it is possible to report a dangerous pothole to a local authority with an accuracy of 6 m, livestock on a road, a faulty street lamp or a gas leak. This shows the benefits of Loc8 codes.

As any location can have a Loc8 code, it is especially useful for tourism. Waymarked trails can use it to indicate points along trails or cycleways. Tours could be devised that follow Loc8 codes, which would not be possible using Eircode. This is particularly relevant to a tourism county, for example, County Kerry where I dwell. The Ring of Kerry is in south Kerry and the new tourism route, the Ring of North Kerry, has major potential. There are also the Dingle Peninsula and Ring of Beara tours. Kerry is the most frequently visited county in the country. Using Loc8 codes would be a major plus, as they are ideal for our tour guides etc.

Overall, I welcome this Bill, but a bit of tweaking is necessary here and there.

Perhaps there is a need to look at some of the other technical uses of this system, such as the ways in which various technologies could be combined and connected into it.

I would like to conclude by mentioning an important aspect of this matter that is directly related to the Minister's portfolio. I put it to him that there will not be much need for postcodes if we do not have any post offices. As has already been said in this Chamber, we are well aware of the need to protect and enhance our post offices. I am hopeful and confident that the Minister will be positive in his support of the post office system. The form recently sent out by the office of the Minister for Social Protection, advising customers and social welfare recipients to bypass post offices and instead go to the banks, was a devastating initiative. I ask the Minister to intervene in every way possible with the Tánaiste on this matter. The Cabinet should take up this matter in a serious way. If we do not get the maximum number of people to use post offices for their social welfare business, which is what they generally want, it will be to the detriment of post offices. It is mischievous that they are being directed to go elsewhere. It will cost jobs. I hope it does not lead to the closure of post offices. I ask the Minister to intervene in this regard as a matter of urgency.

I welcome this Bill as a member of the Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. Later this year, the Government will introduce a national postcode system, which will assign a unique seven-digit postcode to each postal address in the State. The purpose of this Bill is to ensure the public interest is satisfied in the undertaking of legitimate postcode activities so that the processing of personal data in postcode-enabled databases is in compliance with the Data Protection Acts. The legislation will specify the data protection principles with which the postcode contractor and the re-seller of postcode databases will be obliged to comply. This is to ensure the privacy of the owners and occupiers of properties in respect of which postcodes have been allocated is safeguarded.

The main provisions of the Bill before the House include the setting out of the scope of the postcode-related activities to be encompassed by the postcodes legislation. This includes the development and maintenance of a postcode system and the dissemination of postcodes. The legislation also deals with the matching of addresses, the incorporation of address aliases into databases and the licensing of the postcode address database. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources may also specify by way of regulations new legitimate postcode activities that may be undertaken. The Minister will be required to consult the Data Protection Commissioner and the Minister for Justice and Equality before making any regulations in this respect.

The proposed new section 66A of the Communications Regulation (Postal Services) Act 2011 will give the Minister the power, by regulations, to set down requirements that a business must satisfy before it can be granted a licence to use a postcode database to provide value-added services. This will enable the Minister to ensure value-added resellers are screened against specific criteria before they can use postcode databases to provide services. This section will also give the Minister the power, by regulations, to require the postcode contractor to include certain specific provisions in the licences it grants to value-added resellers. This will enable the Minister to ensure there is a robust legal framework governing the manner in which value-added resellers use postcode databases, including requirements such as the right to audit, suspend and terminate licences. The postcode contractor will not grant a licence to a value-added reseller or end-user unless it can be demonstrated that it has registered with the appropriate data protection regulator.

The proposed new section 66B of the 2011 Act will introduce a specific obligation to publish a privacy notice so that specific information is made readily available to individuals on how postcodes will be used, to whom postcodes may be licensed and the rights of individuals with regard to the correction of data and the making of complaints. The proposed new section 66C will confirm that the postcode contractor, the Minister and the value-added resellers may process personal data for purposes related to or connected with a legitimate postcode activity. The proposed new section 66D will provide for a statutory framework for a complaints procedure in relation to postcodes. This will ensure adequate steps are put in place to safeguard the legitimate interests of the owners and occupiers of properties. The proposed new section 66E will impose a statutory obligation on the postcode contractor to develop a data retention policy to ensure decommissioned postcodes are retained for record-keeping purposes. I commend the Bill to the House.

I thank Deputies for their contributions and especially for their constructive input into this debate. I appreciate the general support that has been expressed for the Bill, or at least the absence of opposition to the specific provisions contained in it. I accept that Deputies raised some general matters relating to the national postcode project. I will come to some of those in the course of my reply.

The number of Deputies who spoke and the range of their contributions is a testament to the importance and relevance of the proposed postcode system. I welcome this opportunity to respond to some of the various comments and observations that were made on the provisions of this Bill and in the broader context. We can all agree that the development of a national postcode is a progressive achievement of the country. I think most colleagues are in agreement on that. Regardless of what people might say about the particular form of the postcode, there appears to be almost universal agreement that it is desirable that we should have a national postcode system.

The Communications Regulation (Postal Services) (Amendment) Bill 2015 marks an important milestone in the implementation of a national postcode system. It will ensure the highest standards of data protection are applied when postcodes are being used. As I outlined in my earlier statement when I was introducing the Bill, the aim of this legislation is to ensure the public interest is satisfied in relation to the undertaking of specific postcode activities which are fundamental to the implementation of the postcode system. The Bill also sets out the steps that the postcode contractor and the value-added resellers are obliged to comply with in order to ensure the safeguarding of the privacy of owners and occupiers of property in respect of which a postcode has been allocated.

We are not addressing or debating the tender process lying behind this project, which I mentioned in my opening remarks. It is clear that a proper tendering process was followed with regard to this project. That process has not been impugned. When the EU Commission looked at this matter after it was asked to do so, it made it clear that there was no breach whatsoever of procurement rules. That is clearly on the record. I would also like to clarify, in response to the Deputy who raised this matter, that the Commission has asked the Irish authorities for information on the measures adopted generally by Ireland in relation to the avoidance of any possible misinterpretation of the language that is used in the pre-qualification questionnaire. That is an issue of general application in respect of which the Commission is seeking some further information - it is not specific to this project. Members can be reassured with regard to the robustness and the correctness of the procurement process that was followed.

I will do my best to respond to some of the issues that were raised by Deputies during the debate. Deputy Troy asked about the involvement of An Post in the postcode project, particularly during the tender process. I can tell the House that An Post tendered and was involved in the competitive dialogue. Most importantly, An Post is heavily involved in this project and is an integral part of it. An Post was part of the design phase and will be largely responsible for the dissemination of the codes to 2.2 million addresses throughout the State. Eircodes will be fully integrated with An Post's mail-sorting systems. Any integration costs will be part of An Post's overall capital expenditure cost. Those costs are expected to come to approximately €1 million. As I have said, An Post will be heavily involved in the process of disseminating the Eircodes.

The An Post chief executive has said that An Post will work closely with Eircode, the company set up by Capita to manage the codes. An Post is very closely involved in the roll-out of this project.

Many Deputies raised the non-sequential design of the postcode. It is desirable to have this model because it allows for future expansion of the code, for codes to be assigned to new buildings, homes and premises. It also avoids the potential for postcode discrimination that happens in other countries, where postcode lotteries or ghettoes are created by drawing a line around an area on the basis of the information available through postcodes. That will not be the case under our system.

Deputies Troy, Clare Daly, Colreavy, Tom Fleming and perhaps others, raised the support or otherwise for Eircode by organisations, such as the freight industry and emergency services. I repeat there has been widespread support from public and private business for the introduction of Eircode nationally. Nightline, for example, Ireland’s biggest independent logistics firm, fully supports the introduction of Eircode. The objection by one organisation in the emergency services was raised. There is little activity more essential than emergency services. I do not want any impression to go out from this debate that there is anything other than support from them, in particular from the National Ambulance Service, which has welcomed the introduction of Eircode because the codes will facilitate the speedier deployment of these services. This has been stated clearly.

Deputy Colreavy asked what business problem is being solved by Eircode. With respect, there is a business demand and issue to be addressed. The national Eircode system will improve the efficiency and accuracy of internal business processes as a result of the improved accuracy and consistency of databases across the public and private sectors. It will facilitate the accurate location of all addresses in the State, including the 35% of addresses that are not unique. It will make it easier for consumers to shop online and assist the development of Irish online commerce and make it quicker and easier for emergency services to locate addresses, particularly in rural areas. It will facilitate the delivery of improved efficiencies with regard to logistics. We have the support of much of industry for that. It will assist better planning and analysis capabilities in the public and private sectors. It will provide a stimulus to mail volumes through improved direct marketing capabilities, which will help the postal service. It will enable organisations to improve existing services and-or develop new service offerings. It will facilitate improved efficiencies and quality in the mail sector. These are new advantages that will accrue from the Eircode system.

Deputy Pringle made a point about local knowledge associated with the traditional address system. Local knowledge will not disappear. When Eircode comes in this summer the traditional addresses people use will not go away or be deleted from the basic system, memory or use. This will supplement what we have. It will not replace, supplant or wipe out local knowledge. In response to Deputy Boyd Barrett, it will not mean that the personal contact we value in post offices and throughout the postal system will go. It is not a replacement for what has been there but an addition, and a very welcome and desirable one.

The Department has briefed all of the emergency services on this project. The code will be available to all emergency services at whatever stage their systems are ready to exploit it. The National Ambulance Service is already constructing a new computer-aided despatch system to use Eircode and this will be deployed in its new state-of-the-art national call centre later this year. It has welcomed the introduction of Eircode as it will facilitate the speedier deployment of its services.

This legislation is to deal with data protection. Deputies Pringle, Boyd Barrett, Clare Daly, and perhaps others, asked about the Data Protection Commissioner. The Data Protection Commissioner has acknowledged the publication of this Bill and views the legislation as a positive underpinning of the implementation and operation of the Eircode system, ensuring that essential data protection safeguards are in place. I want to reassure the House of that. When people raise concerns they are thinking about the use of Eircode with another piece of data. In that case it probably will fall under the Data Protection Commissioner’s definition of personal data but where Eircode is used in conjunction with personal data, such as a name, the Data Protection Acts will apply. The protections will be available in those circumstances. Several Deputies said if we had not used this model there would be no data protection concerns. I question whether there would be no data protection issue if we had used the cluster system. It could be argued that the cluster-based approach is possibly even a greater threat to privacy by making it possible to identify people based on their area or who they live near.

Some of the objections from Deputies Clare Daly, Boyd Barrett, and perhaps Deputy Wallace, related more to the involvement of the contractor, Capita. Private Eye was mentioned and we can, and often do, get a laugh from Private Eye but we should be serious about a very serious company and project. Capita employs approximately 2,000 people in this country, across seven business lines. It has contracts with organisations such as the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, and has acquired AIB’s international financial services operation. It is a serious company, doing an important job for the State on contract. The notion that we are handing over some public project or something that is an important public policy area to a private company is false. The State is still centre stage. The system is owned by the State but is being operated on its behalf by Capita. It has a ten-year licence but the intellectual property belongs to the State. Eight years of the licence remain and the Minister of the day will have the discretion to extend the licence by five years. Deputies should be clear that ownership rests with the State. I know and understand the concerns people often raise about public services contracted to private bodies. It is a controversial issue and there is no difficulty about debating the proper boundaries for services that ought to be provided directly by the State, a State agency or contracted to private bodies. These issues arise constantly, as one Deputy said, in respect of the health services. There are many successful public services carried out by private companies, for example, construction work done by builders for local authorities. These are successful jobs done for the public good on contract to private providers.

The notion that this private involvement is always bad or objectionable is strange.

A number of indigenous companies, including BearingPoint, Autoaddress, Marketing Network and Prior Communications, are involved in this important project.

On the model used, given the large proportion of Irish addresses - 35% - which are non-unique, a cluster or area-based code would not achieve anything like the benefits that will be achieved using the model we have chosen. Area-based codes would not make it easier to locate some of these addresses. As Deputy Pringle noted, families sharing the same surname frequently live in the same townland. This is one of the main challenges that will be addressed by the form of postcode we have chosen. I believe we have opted for the correct approach.

Deputies raised the issue of cost. The cost to the Exchequer of the roll-out of the national postcode system over the ten-year cycle of the contract is expected to be €27 million, exclusive of value added tax, with costs covering design, database upgrades, media and Eircode distribution. The cost of the contract will be €16 million over the first two years and a further €1.2 million per annum for the remaining eight years of the project. Since 2010, approximately €1.5 million has been spent on specialist costs arising from the project. The costs of designing Eircode and establishing the Eircode address database account for approximately 9% of total costs. The estimated cost of dissemination to each household will be 6% of the overall total costs. It is expected that 37% of the overall costs over ten years will be attributed to communications and the upgrade of public sector databases.

Deputy Boyd Barrett asked a question on the costs for business. The Eircode address database will be made available to a variety of business users for purchase. As an earlier speaker noted, small and medium enterprises may avail of the Eircodes free of charge for a limited number of look-ups per day from a dedicated website. The comprehensive pricing structure is available on the Eircode website and the costs for business will vary depending on the type of use and number of users in each licensing organisation.

Deputy Halligan asked about a privacy impact assessment. Although it is not yet a statutory requirement, the Department undertook a privacy impact assessment at the request of the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner. The purpose of the assessment was to ensure that any potential impact on individuals as a result of the introduction of Eircode was recognised and addressed. At a high level, the assessment has concluded that the introduction of Eircodes is unlikely to have any significant adverse effect on the right to privacy. In addition to the licensing conditions with Capita, some strengthening of the data protection safeguards associated with the postcode operations was recommended. The privacy impact statement addresses issues surrounding the need to ensure proper privacy protection and the legislation addresses issues related to data protection.

While this is an important Bill, it is only one aspect of the postcode project, albeit one which required to be addressed in legislation.

I thank Deputies again for their contributions and interest in the Bill. I would welcome the support of the House for its provisions. Through the Chair, I respectfully ask Deputies who are members of the Select Sub-committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to table any amendments they may have as quickly as possible in order that I can give them full and fair consideration. I assure the House that I will consider all amendments with an open mind. My overall objective is to progress the Bill to the Statute Book a quickly as possible. I look forward to constructive engagement with Deputies and Members of the other House in due course.

Question put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 56; Níl, 25.

  • Bannon, James.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Butler, Ray.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Conaghan, Michael.
  • Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coveney, Simon.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Dowds, Robert.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Ferris, Anne.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Fitzpatrick, Peter.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Flanagan, Terence.
  • Fleming, Sean.
  • Harris, Simon.
  • Heydon, Martin.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Keating, Derek.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lawlor, Anthony.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Maloney, Eamonn.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
  • Mulherin, Michelle.
  • Nash, Gerald.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • O'Donovan, Patrick.
  • O'Reilly, Joe.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Spring, Arthur.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Troy, Robert.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Twomey, Liam.
  • Varadkar, Leo.
  • Wall, Jack.
  • White, Alex.

Níl

  • Adams, Gerry.
  • Boyd Barrett, Richard.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Collins, Joan.
  • Colreavy, Michael.
  • Daly, Clare.
  • Ellis, Dessie.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Fitzmaurice, Michael.
  • Fleming, Tom.
  • Halligan, John.
  • Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
  • McDonald, Mary Lou.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McLellan, Sandra.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O'Brien, Jonathan.
  • O'Sullivan, Maureen.
  • Pringle, Thomas.
  • Ross, Shane.
  • Stanley, Brian.
  • Tóibín, Peadar.
  • Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg; Níl, Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Michael Colreavy.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share