Mr. Mark Griffin:

On the design change, if we look back at the first detailed analysis and critique of the code in 2006, by the National Postcode Project Board, it wanted a postal sector model on the lines of abc 123. This would have been like the code in the UK, where the postcode would identify a block of between ten and possibly up to 50 houses. It is clear from looking at the board's report that while it settled on that type of approach, its preference was to have a unique identifier. The reason that was not progressed at the time was because of concerns expressed by the Data Protection Commissioner.

As the debate, discussion and consultation evolved over the following years and particularly with the consultation process during 2010, it became clear a unique identifier was the preferred model. The Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, which considered this issue in 2010, recommended that the option of a postcode system based on a unique identifier should be taken up in view of its range of benefits, using the best, most up to date technology. Therefore, the perspective that evolved over a number of years was that a unique postcode, particularly given the extent of the non-unique addresses in Ireland, would be a much more effective postcode to introduce.

It has taken people time to understand how this works. There has been some reaction from the freight companies and a little bit of head scratching. I believe that if I come back to this committee in a month or in two years' time, there will have been a much greater level of adoption of postcodes. Take for example what happened in Northern Ireland, where it took from 25 to 30 years before it achieved an 85% rate of use of the postcode on mailed items. I do not think it will take anything like that with our system. Although this identifier is called a postcode, its potential use extends far beyond the mail system.