Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

When I raised this issue in November, I believe I was the first of the Cork Deputies to raise it. I brought it up again six days ago. I do not believe there is an economic justification for the closure of the Little Island mail centre in Cork. I would like to examine the justification for the decision in greater detail because we have not seen a detailed justification. To provide clarity for the proposers of the original motion, our amendment seeks clarity on the McKinsey report. The Minister has not come before the House to explain to us, chapter and verse, what is in the McKinsey report. We have now heard from Deputy Micheál Martin about the Accenture report. As the Minister stated, McKinsey and Company was commissioned to do a report in 2016 but we do not have sight of any information on the engagement between An Post and McKinsey, nor do we know what recommendations were made arising from that interaction.

It is a fair assumption that the Cork centre was not the one that was slated for closure. I believe there was a politically expedient decision to close Cork on the basis that it was the path of least resistance. This process should be stalled pending a further interrogation by this House in respect of the decisions that have been made about Cork.

I say this with some justification. If the previous Minister can come before the House and create a scenario whereby he seeks some sort of moral authority in respect of the increase in the cost of a stamp to €1, and if this House gives that Minister some impetus to do that on the basis that we want to give An Post a fighting chance, then I also believe that we have the right in this House, given there is a public interest at stake, to interrogate the decisions in respect of Cork.

I have already rehashed the arguments in two previous interventions in this House in respect of the increase in revenue and the loss of retail business, so I will not go over them again. However, when revenue is increasing, the profit line is increasing and the company says it is moving into the parcels business, why would it then hive off one of the parcels centres as an area of activity and close it? That does not stack up and I do not understand it.

Notwithstanding all of that, An Post's administrative costs, according to its annual reports, have ramped up as a percentage of sales and, specifically in 2018, went from €55.9 million to €63.9 million, which gives it an extra €8 million. To quote directly from a journal.iepost on 17 March, in its official rebranding An Post has spent €5 million, changed the colouring of its logo and created a fictional millennial character called Ciara, and there is a whole blurb about the future direction of An Post. Therefore, in these two examples, there is already €13 million that we have not had sight of or had an opportunity to interrogate. Yet, we in this House are expected to accept at face value the closure of a vital, modern and relatively new centre. I refuse to accept the justification for the closure of this centre until such time as we have a proper process by which we can interrogate those decisions on the basis that there is a public interest issue at stake.

With respect to the Minister, Deputy Bruton, he said to me on the record of the Dáil on 20 November last year, when I first raised this issue, that “it must be borne in mind that this is a public company that has a commercial responsibility”. We have the right to interrogate that relationship between Government and An Post on the basis that we cannot accept an at face value everything An Post is telling us in regard to rationalisation of services at a time when its revenue is increasing. We want the opportunity to protect jobs and to give those workers a fighting chance. We need to know exactly how much has been paid to Accenture and to McKinsey thus far by An Post. While it is talking about savings and rationalisation, one could argue that the spend on consultants and on rebranding would have saved any number of jobs at the Cork mail centre.

I support the motion. We have put forward an amendment and I have clarified the rationale behind it. If it is the case that the decision is made absolutely and we are not given an opportunity in the House to interrogate that decision further, then our amendment seeks to ensure those workers get the best possible terms and conditions. We want to speak for those workers, if that is the case. Nobody has given up the fight, however. This is the third time I am on my feet in this House, trying to defend those workers on the basis of a set of rational arguments that I seek to put forward based on the criteria that have been presented to us, despite the lack of transparency in the process in regard to how An Post has dealt with this issue.

See this speech in context