Alex White (Dublin South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank my colleagues and Senators for their thoughtful and insightful contributions. In the first instance, I thank Senator Daly but I shall thank all the Senators sequentially as it will be quicker.

In response to the questions of why recommendations are reviewed and why a sequential code was not proceeded with, I shall outline the fundamental reason which I mentioned in my opening remarks.In excess of 35% of all address points in this jurisdiction are non-unique addresses, which is significantly higher than any other comparable OECD country. After considerable deliberation and analysis, the decision was made that a unique identifier best meets the needs of the Irish addressing problem by uniquely identifying properties that share the same address. We think it is manifestly sustainable in the sense that there is no requirement to reassign or change existing Eircodes where there is new build. Area codes have the potential to lead to Eircode discrimination where they are sequential - so-called Eircode ghettos where an area can be identified and targeted in unacceptable ways. We have seen that elsewhere.

Area codes can lead to loss of anonymity and privacy issues in areas of non-unique addresses. That is something we are addressing. Area codes can also lead to capacity issues. The unique Eircode design, however, allows for more than 250,000 codes to be assigned to each post town, of which there are approximately 139 in Ireland.

We are therefore able to take advantage of technological advances, and can have regard to all of the changes that have taken place which can be integrated into this new system. It is a unique system but one that I believe will work for our particular needs in this country.

I welcome the support of Senator Mulcahy and Senator Whelan for the intended action on Eircodes. In some sense, what Senator Mulcahy said essentially answered Senator Quinn's remarks. People often say that in Ireland we have an implementation deficit disorder, as it has been described. We have been at this for ten years or more. People may disagree on the choice of design, but if anybody thinks this has been done without deliberation, analysis or consultation, including extensive consultation with business and other users and potential users, they would be mistaken. I want to assure the House that this has been dealt with, analysed, prepared and designed to a considerable level of detail. I am saying that in response to what Senator Cullinane said.

Senator Daly was concerned about some guideline issues, including the use of "may" or "shall". I can tell him that the regulations are currently being drafted in the Department, so there will be no concern about any delay there.

A complaints process is dealt with extensively in the code of practice, which has been drafted in consultation with the contractor. As regards the items set out in the regulations, one can see that a complaints procedure is incorporated in the Bill, so we will have a high level of clarity about that in advance.

I wish to query one of Senator Craughwell's remarks, which I disagree with and think is unfortunate. That is the notion that the Eircodes could cause a risk to life. Let us be fair-minded here. The Eircodes will do something additional to what is there at the moment. Even an individual who is strongly opposed to them must acknowledge that this is an add-on to what is already there.