Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 27 April 2010
47 Deputy Liz McManus asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the reason the tender process for a postcode system has been suspended; if he has read the report on postcodes of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources; if he will take on board the recommendation of that report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16860/10]
Amharc ar fhreagraAn invitation to tender was issued on 29 January 2010 for consultants to assist in selecting a body to implement and maintain a postcode system. The tender competition closed on 12 March 2010. Subsequently, a technical issue arose relating to the consistency of the request for tenders with the requirements of the public procurement regulations. The issue arose internally in the Department and was not raised by any of the outside interested parties. Bidders were notified by letter of the cancellation of the tender and a notice to that effect was posted on the e-tenders website on 15 April 2010. A request for tender will be re-issued by my Department this week. The need to issue a new tender will have a limited impact on the timeline for the roll-out of the postcode system. It remains my objective to roll out the system by the end of 2011.
I have received and read the joint committee's report on postcodes, which is currently being reviewed by my Department. The report makes a series of recommendations relating to the design and implementation of a national postcode system. These include proposals for future-proofing of system design; the publication of a road map for implementation later this year; clarification of issues arising in relation to data protection; the promotion of postcode usage and the retention of familiar and well-used addresses.
Consideration of the details of the report is currently ongoing in my Department. This includes seeking clarification on legal issues raised by the joint committee. I will be happy to reply to the committee in full, as requested, when this is complete.
I thank the Minister for reading the report. I was rapporteur for the committee and it was unanimously agreed to publish this report and recommend to the Minister that he adopt a particular approach. I am a little unhappy at his response in terms of what he considers to be the issue raised in the report. Will the Minister agree the key issue and the main recommendation is to have a unique identifier system compatible with GPS? Such a system would have significant benefits across the board. Will he state whether he plans to continue with this new tendering process with the old model of using a cluster of properties rather than using the unique identifier system? I urge him to use the opportunity of this delay. In his initial statement he said that it would be in early 2011 and now he refers to the end of 2011. If this gives us a better system I am quite happy to go along with that. However, the main point to be stressed — the Minister did not clarify it and I am concerned he is avoiding it — is whether he will pursue the unique identifier option. Does he intend to talk to the Data Protection Commissioner as soon as possible in order to ensure the issue of data protection is cleared up? Is he satisfied the approach he has adopted in the past of using the cluster of up to 50 houses, is appropriate to the needs of today?
I am very pleased the Deputy opposite is now supporting the post and location codes proposals.
I am supportive of this but not of the Minister's system.
My understanding in earlier statements was that there was opposition. I welcome political support across the House for a post code and a location code. I have consistently said we must have both. In reply to the Deputy's question, there has to be a system that provides a unique household identifier. It might not be just a household but it could also include other street infrastructure which will require a code, such as locating a bus stop. A location code is another example of the benefits of this system. I have always planned to have a code which provides for an efficient postal service and also includes those location code characteristics. In my discussions with a number of parties I have consistently examined how this can be achieved. With the adoption of the post code model recommended by the body set up to suggest the model and by the use of additional digits it is possible to get such a locational code down to the building. Over the past two years I have had a couple of meetings with the Data Protection Commissioner on exactly the issue raised in the joint committee report which I welcome. The concerns originally expressed by the Data Protection Commissioner in 2006 regarding privacy are valid concerns. These concerns can be addressed in a way that allows the development of a location code while at the same time maintaining privacy where appropriate.
This sounds like a real mishmash. Frankly, I would not support a proposal that adopts an old technology pretending it is a new technology. Will the Minister accept the costs involved in having a clustering system, and maintaining it because of new build and old buildings being demolished, is a costly approach?
If we can clear the data protection issue, the technology is available to have a unique-identifier system which would generate enormous benefits not least to Departments, but also to the emergency services and others. It is all contained in the report which I do not need to restate.
Will the Minister try not to straddle both sides on this matter? I would have more respect for him if he said he was sticking with the cluster system. While I may not agree with such a decision, at least it would be a position. To have two systems, however, on top of each other is nonsensical.
The expert advice I received said it is absolutely possible.
It is not desirable, however.
There are real benefits to having a postcode system that works on the basis recommended by the postcode board.
No, the Minister is wrong.
There are real benefits with memorability and being able to apply geodirectory codes and the root network systems in place to a postcode network. Crucially, I insisted at all times on a facility within the postcode system to develop a location-code system that could go right down to a building. This would allow emergency services to get to the right house or Departments to get the level of information they needed for individual houses and, at the same time, work with the Data Protection Commissioner, to protect the householder's privacy where appropriate. I have been told by the experts it is possible to achieve both outcomes. This is what I am setting out to achieve.
We can come back to this in later questions but the Deputy opposite is hitching her wagon to one particular company and technical solution.
I am afraid we must move on.
I prefer the route we have chosen which will employ consultants to assess this and put it out to a tendering competition which will meet the criteria we have set. As long as it meets the criteria of being both a good postcode and location-code system, I will be satisfied.
That is not accurate. I must clarify this. The Minister, in his statement on the introduction of postcodes, hitched his wagon to the cluster system. The report shows, in my humble view because I am not an expert on this, that the unique-identifier system is the best postcode system we can have and is appropriate to our times. To meld the two systems——
Another debate elsewhere would be required to resolve this matter.
——would be expensive and inefficient, ending up with a mess.
Does the Minister want to give a brief response?
It is very possible and I believe it is the right thing to do.
