Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

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 rollout 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 post codes 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 reason, it was pushed out. This is one of the few countries in the world that does not have a postal code system. The reason we have not had a postal code 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. They system has not been tried and tested and I hope that it will not spiral out of control like Irish Water.

See this speech in context