Mr. Eamonn Molloy:

I will respond first before Mr. Duggan replies. The initial project is fundamentally about addresses. However, once the initial system has been embedded and the issue of addresses has been taken care of, there will be scope to consider an expansion. Speaking as a cautious civil servant, it is better to approach these matters by taking a number of steps rather than a great leap, particularly as so much of the project will be different not only at national level, but also internationally.

The Deputy made a good point when he asked whether the tender was based on large users only. If the tender had been focused on large users and urban areas only and had not been equally focused on users in rural and regional areas, we would not have taken the approach we did. We have a scenario where we are basically dealing with external commercial operators and there is a high level of awareness and interest. The Nightline Group is a simple example. It is a very big company but we are also aware of other companies. The system will work for large and small businesses and the real benefit is in rural and regional areas, which is not to say the cities are different. I did a quick check before the meeting which showed that the problem with addressing is not confined to rural areas. In my case, I checked and found that while I have a unique address, there are four different versions in common use scattered around various Government databases. There is a fundamental problem. I do not know how An Post manages to achieve 95% next day deliveries but this is an enormous achievement. If so many versions are attached to unique properties, the non-unique properties must be an even greater problem.

I will ask Mr. Duggan to address the issue of piloting, on which I will say only that we have embarked on a staged process and we test at every step we take. It is not the case that we will explode onto the scene with something that has not been reasonably well tested in the background. My colleagues will provide further detail on that point.

Mr. Duggan will also respond to the question on X and Y co-ordinates. A good question was asked on procurement and when we made a decision to take the unique option. As the person responsible for procurement, I can state that we had not made a decision to go unique when we started the procurement process. We are often accused of opting to go unique because it suited corporate interests or whatever. We had not made that decision in 2010. Administratively, there will always be a reluctance to do things in a radically different manner. What happened was that we engaged in an extensive process of consultation. I can state categorically that, as a public servant, I did not meet a single person during the engagement process who believed it was worthwhile doing the post code nationally without dealing with the unique issue. It was not the case that we chose to make a decision. We were forced to make it because we did not meet anyone who had a different opinion. This was a remarkable turnaround, which highlights the benefit of the type of procurement process in which we engaged, that is, a competitive dialogue. Ultimately, we were engaging with people to ascertain what solution would work. The solution is based on Irish requirements and the specific contingencies of the Irish market. It is not based on problems that do not exist here but real problems faced by Mr. Duggan on the ground every day.