I will call the Deputies who tabled these Private Notice Questions in the order in which they submitted their questions to my office.
Private Notice Questions. - Prison Service Threatened Strike.
andMr. O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Justice if, in the light of an impending crisis in the country's prisons as a result of an imminent industrial relations dispute, he will make a statement on the matter; the steps which are being taken to secure an amicable resolution of the dispute; and if he is prepared to intervene personally, as he has been asked to do by the Prison Officers' Association.
asked the Minister for Justice, in view of the decision of the Prison Officers' Association to take strike action, if he will immediately intervene to prevent this threatened strike; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Justice if he will personally intervene in the present dispute between his Department and the Prison Officers' Association with a view to preventing an all-out strike in our prison service which will place an intolerable burden on Garda and Army resources if it proceeds.
I propose to take all three questions together.
I, of course, regret that the national executive of the Prison Officers' Association have decided to serve strike notice with effect from 16 April next.
Contrary to an impression which has been created, the question on which members of the POA were asked to vote in the recent ballot was not whether there should be a strike on 16 April. Instead members were asked whether they were, "prepared to embark upon a course of industrial action up to and including strike action if necessary". It seems to me that the wording on the ballot clearly envisaged strike action only as a very last resort. In the circumstances I am disappointed that, although the outcome of the ballot did not become known until yesterday, the executive decided to immediately serve strike notice.
That being said, there is clearly a very real danger of the strike going ahead. My Department have had consultations with the Garda Síochána and the Army to prepare to deal with this eventuality. It would not be appropriate, for obvious reasons, for me to go into any detail about contingency plans but I should stress that every effort will be made to preserve basic facilities for offenders such as access to visits.
The issues involved in the present dispute have a long history. Successive Ministers for Justice have taken the view that the level of overtime working in the prison service has been excessive and, indeed, the Prison Officers' Association itself had made many public pronouncements to this effect and called for additional staff to be recruited.
In the circumstances it was decided when this year's financial allocations were being settled that a new roster would be introduced and that 200 extra staff would be recruited to enable this. Most of the 200 new jobs have now been filled and it was necessary in order to stay within the allocations to implement the new roster. This was designed, allowing for the cost of new staff, to achieve a net saving of £2 million. I had hoped that it would prove possible to reach agreement with the POA on the form of a new roster but, in the event, this was not forthcoming. In fact discussions took place for over three years in an attempt to secure agreement on a new roster but I think most Members of this House will accept that the Government could not indefinitely allow the lack of agreement to stand in the way of providing jobs for 200 people. Even with the new roster there is still £6.3 million available for overtime in the prison service this year and this works out at an average of £3,000 in overtime payments for each member of the staff.
While I am, of course, anxious that the dispute be resolved the net issue remains that the new roster was necessary so that money could be spent on 200 new jobs rather than on overtime. I cannot accept that such an approach necessitates financial compensation for existing staff but in any case the money is simply not available.
I do accept, however, that the roster which was introduced recently is causing difficulties for staff. That is why my Department have made clear to the POA that there is a much better roster available — from the point of view of staff — if the association would agree to its implementation. I think members of the prison service would be doing themselves an injustice in embarking on strike action without having the alternative roster fully explored by their association.
Deputies will appreciate that I cannot use the floor of this House as a forum for negotiating with the POA and, accordingly, there is a limit to what I can say about a resolution to this dispute. I do believe, however, that with goodwill on both sides it should prove possible to avoid a confrontation on this issue but it would be unrealistic to call on me alone to intervene to prevent the threatened strike as though the POA itself has no function or responsibilities in this matter.
In this context I should inform the House that some weeks ago at the request of the POA a mediator was appointed under the conciliation and arbitration scheme. I am at present considering having my Department contact the mediator requesting that further discussions take place under his auspices between my Department and the POA in an effort to resolve the present dispute.
I have no objections to having discussions with the POA directly but it would have been inappropriate for me to have had such a meeting while mediation was taking place. Before agreeing to a meeting I would have to be satisfied that this represented the best hope for resolving the situation. Obviously in the discussions which have already taken place my officials have been acting with my full knowledge and authority and my inclination at this stage is that it would be best for discussions under the mediator to continue.
I can assure the House that I will explore every avenue under proper industrial relations procedures to seek a resolution to this dispute. I would urge the national executive of the POA to do likewise so as to avoid a course of action that could have very serious implications for staff and their families. I would ask staff themselves to think long and hard before taking strike action in circumstances where, from their point of view, there is a much better roster on offer. Finally, I would ask Members of this House to accept that the approach of using the available finances to create jobs rather than on overtime — which is the basic issue at stake — is the correct one.
In thanking the Minister for his detailed and lengthy reply, could I ask him about the nub issue that we can be involved in here? As he rightly said, we cannot be involved in negotiation of this matter across the floor of the House. Is he aware of the clear statements put out by the association that they feel that the matters in dispute can be resolved in direct discussion and meeting between them and the Minister? They have specifically asked for that course. Could I, therefore, ask the Minister to confirm, as he suggested in his reply in a rather obscure way, that he is prepared to follow the best course at the 11th hour, of responding favourably to the suggestion from the association and agree to sit down with them and try to resolve the difficulty face-to-face across the table as they have requested? This seems a perfectly reasonable, appropriate, speedy and efficient way of dealing with an imminent crisis.
With regard to the first part of Deputy Taylor's question, I am aware of the statements issued on behalf of the Prison Officers' Association. I was made aware of this dispute only by way of a news broadcast yesterday at 1.30 p.m. when they gave notice of their intention to strike as and from April 16. Since then I have been watching all news bulletins and listening to them in the hope that I would know what they were saying, because I have not been given copies of their statements.
With regard to the second part of Deputy Taylor's question as to whether I would be prepared to meet the association, I have said I would be prepared to meet them but up to now I could not because the request came for a mediator which we conceded. Certainly under the C & A scheme there was not any room for me as Minister to meet the Prison Officers' Association as long as the mediator was doing what he should do. In the event of the mediator not being acceptable, I will certainly consider the request for a meeting with the Prison Officers' Association.
Some weeks ago I raised this matter here but unfortunately the Minister was away at the time. I warned the Taoiseach at that time that the Prison Officers' Association were coming up against the wire in terms of having a dispute. I dropped a note to the Minister himself on that matter. I was pleased to hear that mediation facilities are available. Could the mediator be given powers of recommendation? This is vitally important if we are to have a meaningful mediation system, combined with the withdrawal of his proposals for a limited period — and I stress that — pending further discussions. What we all on this side of the House are trying to do is to prevent what could be a very serious strike. It is not my intention here today to say anything that would not be helpful. Could we have a mediator who could have a power of recommendation and could the Minister's proposals for the new rostering system be withdrawn for a very limited period — and I mean that — pending these discussions? The discussions also should have a time limit on them.
I want to thank Deputy Barrett and Deputy Taylor for their concern in relation to the strike threat. I am very much aware also of what is involved. As I said last evening and say again today, I certainly hope that the Prison Officers' Association will have a rethink on this. I said at the outset of my reply that when they balloted their members — and I read to the House the question on which the ballot was taken — a strike threat was to be the very last recourse. However, as soon as the votes were in, it would happen to be the first recourse. With regard to the question of the mediator, under the C&A scheme, as Deputy Barrett knows full well, the purpose of the mediator is to get consensus between the two sides. That is as it was and as it has to be under that scheme.
On the suggestion by Deputy Barrett that the roster at present in operation be withdrawn, the Deputy knows full well that I and the leader of his party who was my immediate predecessor have been trying to get agreement on a roster for the past three years and we have not met with any progress whatsoever. There is no hope now in thinking that if the roster in operation were withdrawn we would be any nearer a solution in six to 12 months' time. I can only say that, having regard to the financial allocation available to me to run the prison service this year by way of moneys for overtime, which is £6.4 million, this is the only way I can manage within the resources available to me. There is no other money available.
Having said that, I again concede to the House that difficulties are being experienced in the implementation of this roster as at present in operation. I repeat there is a far better roster available which can be brought in only with the agreement of the Prison Officers' Association and which cannot be imposed. I would be more than happy and prepared to sit down this very minute with the Prison Officers' Association to tell them that that is a far better roster for the benefit of their members which will result in an efficient prison service with everything running within the limit of the resources available to us. I would ask them to help us to get that system under way.
I also thank the Minister for his sincere response. Any resolution of this problem should be in the context of the budget already allocated in the 1988 Estimate. Having said that, problems of this kind will be ongoing until such time as we have a new management structure in the prison service and obviously that is not something that can be discussed in the context of this dispute alone. Would the Minister be in a position to meet with the Prison Officers' Association while the mediation is going ahead? I understand from the association, whose members I have met recently, that a meeting with the Minister would go a long way towards sorting out the existing difficulties. Instead of talking to each other through the press, radio and television — and I sympathise with the Minister's position — if the Minister were to agree to meet with the Prison Officers' Association that would go a long way towards avoiding the all-out strike on 16 April.
Deputy S. Barrett rose.
In fairness, the Chair must be consistent in these matters. A Deputy has posed some questions and is entitled to hear the Minister's reply.
I thank Deputy Harney for her comments and I should like to say that I have no objections to having discussions with the Prison Officers' Association. However, it would be inappropriate for me to have such a meeting while mediation is taking place. If I am satisfied that efforts at mediation are at a dead end I would then consider meeting the Prison Officers' Association. It is a fact that on practically every occasion the Prison Officers' Association asked to meet me I met them and discussed their problems. That is my job and I am quite prepared to do it.
I wish to thank the Minister for his response. Is he aware of the consequences if this dispute is allowed to continue? The Garda will be implicated which will reduce security in the city and, for that reason, the Minister should become involved. The Minister said that there is mediation at present but the prison officers have given notice that there will be a strike on 16 April. The prison officers are not looking for extra cash; they are concerned with the rota which has been imposed on them without prior notice. I appeal to the Minister to agree to meet the prison officers to discuss the rota with them.
I am glad to hear Deputy Barrett speaking on behalf of the Prison Officers' Association and to hear they are not looking for additional cash. Bearing that in mind and the financial restrictions on me, I will gladly meet them any time and at any place so that this problem can be resolved. I will give them a roster which will benefit their members to a far greater degree than the present one. I have no hang-up in the world about meeting them here and now if it does not cost me money. If the prison officers say publicly that any changes will not cost the Exchequer additional moneys, other than the £38.5 million provided for the prison service, I will be happy.
I understand the Ceann Comhairle indicated that Deputy Enright will have the final question.
I wish to thank the Minister for the details contained in his reply. There is overall agreement among prison staff that the Minister will provide an additional 200 personnel which they have been requesting for some time.
What about the ceist?
The Minister said he is agreeable to meeting the Prison Officers' Association but the problem is he has put in a proviso that he cannot meet them while mediation procedures are going ahead. Will the Minister strongly consider suspending the mediation proceedings immediately so that the meeting can take place? It is very urgent because if the matter drags on and there is a strike it will cause major conflict in our institutions.
I will certainly do as Deputy Enright suggested and give strong, favourable consideration to his suggestion.
I did not get a satisfactory reply to the question I originally put to the Minister. The Minister should have a mediator with the power of recommendation. When I asked him to withdraw the proposal I intended it to be for a very limited period. We are facing a strike and there should be a little bit of give and take on both sides. If we can resolve this before 16 April we will save ourselves problems and the State money. Now is the time to tease this out as we are all trying to find a solution.
Deputy Barrett knows that there are winners and losers in every strike although nobody wants that. He should also know that if I have to withdraw the roster at present in operation the Exchequer will be a loser to the tune of £60,000 or £70,000 per week. That is a loss for which I cannot cater financially.
The Minister will be handing out the money for Garda overtime.
I will be limited in that regard also. Deputy Barrett asked whether the mediator should have teeth but we are talking about a mediator, not an arbitrator. Under the conciliation and arbitration scheme, the functions and duties of a mediator are very clearly understood. We are bound to observe the terms of the conciliation and arbitration scheme.
Minister Bertie Ahern went in with tea to a few strikes.
The issue is straightforward and we must treat it seriously. In a nutshell, if I get the agreement of the Prison Officers' Association — and bearing in mind that I have been assured on behalf of the association here today that no additional funds are required — I will give a guarantee that there will be a separate prison rostering system which will meet the wishes of all the people involved. It would be regrettable if people in the association believe, as a result of the discussion here today, that their position will be improved above and beyond that obtaining at present, having regard to the mediator's input. It is unfair to the Prison Officers' Association. There are serious issues involved and there is no additional money available to meet overtime payments in the prison service above and beyond the £6.3 million provided for. I must work within that allocation. I have, as Deputy Enright said, already given additional employment to 200 young persons who were on the dole before that. The situation can be improved for everybody involved if the new roster system which I have ready is accepted by them.
Deputy Enright rose.
Ní cheadóidh mé aon cheist eile.