asked the Minister for Justice if his attention has been drawn to a statement' by the Prison Officers' Association proposing to instruct its members to ban the supervision of evening recreation in jails, because they feel that manning levels have dropped to a dangerously low level; if he is aware that 53 of the 86 officers were unavailable to work overtime in Mountjoy Prison last week where it is claimed there were strong indications of a mass breakout; if, in view of the serious deteriorating conditions caused by a lack of adequate numbers of prison officers to carry out duties in reasonable normal working hours he will state the urgent and immediate steps he proposes to take, in the interest of the proper safety of prison staff offenders and the general public, to meet the serious threat to the breakdown of security in our prisons; and if he will make a comprehensive statement on the matter.
Private Notice Question. - Prison Manning Level.
I am aware that problems could arise in relation to the manning of the prisons during the evening recreation period after 5 p.m. The difficulty is that prison staff are not working overtime in sufficient numbers after 5 p.m. to meet the required manning levels. It has been traditional for prison staff to supervise prisoners during this period on overtime, which is built-in to the rosters. Excessive overtime has been a feature of the prison service for some time. However, additional staff are being recruited this year which should reduce overtime working substantially.
Built-in overtime can only be eliminated by changes in the rosters, and changes cannot be made without the agreement of the Prison Officers' Association.
The position about staffing and rosters is as follows:—Between January 1975 and January 1980 the number of persons in custody in the charge of prison officers has risen from a daily average of 1,019 to 1,140. In the same period the number of prison officers rose from 682 to 1,151. Additionally, this year, 1980, 400 prison officers will be recruited, trained and assigned to duty. This represents a net increase of about 350 or 30 per cent over the staff numbers on the 1 January 1980. It is, accordingly, expected that the number of serving prison officers will be 1,500 by the end of 1980. So far this year, 234 additional prison officers have been recruited and about 50 more are expected to take up duty on 24 May 1980.
Since August 1979, a working party, including representatives of the POA, has been engaged in a study of rostering in the prison service. It has not been possible for the working party to agree on a suitable alternative roster. It is open to the POA to continue discussions on rostering arrangements within the working party. The decision whether or not to unlock a prison for evening recreation, having regard to the number of staff on duty, is a management decision. If management are satisfied that it would be too dangerous to unlock, then obviously the decision should be taken not to unlock.
This decision can be avoided by prison officers working overtime in sufficient numbers, especially in view of the fact that additional staff is being recruited and the fact that it remains open to the Prison Officer's Association to continue to negotiate on all problems affecting the prison service, including the question of new rostering arrangements.
I am seriously concerned about this problem and the potentially dangerous situation that could arise and I would hope that the POA would agree to continue to negotiate on the issue to try to arrive at an acceptable solution.
Will the Minister acknowledge that his failure to respond to this request put forward by the prisoner officers to operate a roster is the cause of the friction that has developed within the prisons? Does he accept that responsibility rests at his door? The prisoner officers have been pointing out to the Department and the Minister the need to have extra prison officers recruited because of the increase in prison population, but no action has been taken by the Minister. Does the Minister agree that it is regrettable that men who give their professional commitment to do their best for society are forced into doing things which are against their natural instinct because of the lack of interest shown by the Minister and his Department? Will the Minister assure the House that there will be no further delay on his part to respond to any reasonable request put forward by the Prison Officers Association?
I reject what the Deputy has said because there has been a constant response from the Minister and the Department to this situation. The suggested roster by the POA is still under active consideration. Many aspects of it must be looked at and carefully considered. It proposes that an additional recruitment of 1,000 prison officers take place and that, along with many other aspects, could cost the enormous figure of £5 million. The House must be aware where public moneys are involved I have a definite responsibility to ensure the adequacy of the service as it stands and the justification for an increase or development of that service, having regard to the enormous costs involved. Everything possible is being done and negotiations continuing. Contacts were made this week and are continuing to be made daily.
When the Minister states that he rejects what I have said, is he suggesting that the Prison Officers Association have defied the Department of Justice and acted irresponsibly in having prisoners locked up from 5 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. each evening? Is he saying that there was no reason for this action? The reason is that they have been frustrated because there was no response from the Minister's Department.
I reject the statement that there was no response from the Minister.
The Minister is saying that this is their fault.
It is untrue to say that there has not been any response from the Minister.
It is the only reason why the prison officers took this action.
That is totally untrue.
With the permission of the Chair, I should like to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of Questions Nos. 25 to 31 on last Thursday's Order Paper.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I should like to give notice of my intention to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of Question No. 15 on today's Order Paper.
Could I have written replies to Questions Nos. 24, 25 and 26?
I wish to give notice that I should like to raise on the Adjournment the very serious position with regard to the supply of water to Dublin city.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
Could I get guidance from the Chair? Last week I proposed to raise the question of the 90 men who were being paid off by Donegal County Council. This affects their wives and families.
The Chair has no responsibility for that.
On a point of order, I gave notice last week that I proposed to raise the question of the 90 men who were being paid off by Donegal County Council. This affects the wives and families of those men. I was told by you that I could not raise that question because the Estimate for the Department of the Environment was being taken on Friday. Because of the circumstances you know about, on Friday I was unable to raise that matter. I also proposed to raise it yesterday. Now you tell me it is not in order.
The Deputy knows it is not in order to discuss that matter now. The fact that the Deputy was unable to attend the relevant debate is not the responsibility of the Chair.
I am seeking advice from you. Can the Chair inform me how it is possible for me to raise a serious matter such as the paying off of 90 men by Donegal County Council as a direct result of a Government decision?
It is disorderly to attempt to raise this matter in this manner now.
I am not aware that I am being disorderly.
The Chair is telling the Deputy.
I am asking for your advice. I have tried to raise this matter on three different occasions and you have ignored my claim to speak on behalf of 90 people who are being paid off.
Order.
It is a disgrace that Parliament should ignore the plight of 90 families in Donegal.
The Deputy is an adept at raising irrelevant matters.
It is not irrelevant.
The Chair is telling the Deputy it is.
It is very relevant.
The Deputy should not defy the Chair. It is not relevant.
It is relevant to 90 families in Donegal.
It may be in the Deputy's mind, but it is not in accordance with Standing Orders.
I will have money at the end of the week and I will be able to support my wife and children. What about the wives and children of the men who are being paid off by Donegal Council because of a Government decision?
If the Deputy will not resume his seat I will have to ask him to leave the House.
In deference to you I will leave the House, but I do so in protest against your ruling. It is disgraceful that a Member of Parliament cannot raise a matter which affects many people.
If the Deputy is leaving the House he is not entitled to a valedictory speech before he goes.
Will the Deputy be back?
I will be back but Fianna Fáil will not be back after the next election.
Order. The remaining Questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.