Vol. 471 No. 8
2 Ms O'Donnell asked the Minister for Justice if she will give details of the circumstances leading up to recent changes to work practices in our prisons in relation to shifts being exchanged between prison staff; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [22112/96]
Staff in the Prison Service have for decades been allowed the privilege at local level of exchanging shifts with colleagues, where authorised by the Governor, for reasons of domestic or personal commitments. The practice of exchanging duty is a common informal feature of many employments. It is not an unreasonable arrangement, given the demands of a prison officer's job and the need to balance family and work commitments.
The only change to work practices in our prisons in this area in recent years took place in Limerick prison. A Governor's Order was issued in 1993 with the objective of providing a framework for the operation of exchanging duties in that prison. In mid-1994, it was established that a small number of officers, less than half a dozen, were able to manipulate the system in a manner in which the facility was not intended to operate, i.e. they were using the exchange for reasons for which it was not intended. The specific circumstances of this abuse of the facility were not covered by the Governor's Order of 1993. While there has been no extra cost incurred by the prison service arising from such abuse, abuse of the spirit of the intended arrangement for exchanges of duty could not be tolerated.
In the absence of a circular outlining standard procedures in relation to exchanges of duties for the prison service as a whole, the Governor felt he had no basis for withdrawing the privilege from the officers concerned and he recommended that such a circular be issued by the Department. This proved difficult from an industrial relations point of view. A general circular was issued to all Governors in November 1994, but had to be withdrawn in the face of opposition from the Prison Officers' Association. Indeed, industrial action was threatened. In 1995 negotiations continued. The POA felt it could not co-operate with certain proposed limits which the Department wished to include in a general circular. In May 1996 a draft general circular was communicated to Governors to enable the issue to be considered further by them. Discussions with Governors and the POA are continuing on the question of the issue of a general circular.
Once I became aware of the matter in September 1996 at about the same time as Deputy O'Donnell's first letter of 6 September, I directed that this matter be dealt with without further delay. A revised Governor's Order was issued last September in Limerick prison following detailed consultations with the local branch of the Prison Officers' Association who insisted on having time to consult their members. I am now assured the matter has been fully resolved and there cannot be a recurrence of the identified abuse. I have asked the Governor to further review these individual cases to see if there are any grounds for taking disciplinary action.
While the situation to which Deputy O'Donnell refers arose in Limerick prison, my Department, as a precaution to prevent abuse in other prisons is drafting an appropriate circular to all Governors on the process of exchanging duties. Consultations with staff interests regarding the content of this circular, continue to prove difficult because of perceived adverse effects on the general body of staff who avail of exchanges for legitimate purposes and in a manner in which the privilege was intended to operate. The successful operation of the process of exchange of duties requires an appropriate level of local flexibility to allow the Governor the scope to deal with specific requests. Equally, there must be consistency in the manner in which duties are exchanged. The privilege of exchanging duties is long established in the Prison Service, as it is in other similar services, and any proposed changes in arrangements inevitably become an industrial relations matter. I am determined, however, that a positive facility for staff will not and cannot be manipulated by a handful of people so that they can run businesses or engage in other employment during normal rostered times. The POA has indicated it does not wish to see the exchange of duty facility being used as an alternative to job-sharing or career breaks.
I am assured the specific problem in Limerick prison has been resolved satisfactorily with the agreement of the POA and with no adverse effect on officers who have availed of the facility for legitimate purposes within the spirit in which it is provided and intended to be used. I made this quite clear to Deputy O'Donnell in my letter to her on 8 October 1996. I have been informed the necessary administrative action has been taken to deal appropriately with those who were found to be in contravention of the spirit of this facility and, as I said earlier, if the Governor recommends disciplinary action, I can assure the House I will act on that recommendation.
I have also made it clear to the Governor that I expect this facility to be fully monitored and will require regular reports on the numbers utilising this facility.
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive reply. Will she confirm that the abuse of the privilege of exchanging shifts with colleagues involved prison officers being paid for work they did not do, that in some cases prison officers did not set foot inside of the jail for a long time but continued to be paid allowances for working unsocial hours, to get their full annual leave allocation, Saturday and Sunday allowances, night duty allowances, etc.? Will the Minister confirm this practice had been going on for a long time? For how long was anybody in the Department aware of this improper work practice? Why was it allowed to continue, given there was knowledge of this matter since 1993 when a revised Governor's Order was issued to try to regularise the situation? Was the Governor of Limerick prison aware of the abuses? If so, why was it not until September of this year that improper practices were halted?
For many years staff in the prison service have been allowed to exchange shifts with other staff. People who were abusing this facility were paying somebody else to do their roster including, I assume, all the relevant allowances, and continuing to be paid as prison officers. At least one or two people did not appear at their jobs for long periods. That came to my attention in September of this year. The staff in my Department knew, since mid-1994, that this facility was being abused, that officers were swapping shifts, were not doing other duties in exchange but paying somebody else to do their work while they did something else outside. As soon as I became aware this was happening I ordered that it should not continue. Through 1994 and 1995 negotiations have been going on to try to tighten up on abuses, but no action was taken to stop it until September this year.
The Minister says she was not made aware of these improper practices until I wrote on 6 September? Did the Minister receive that letter, since I received no acknowledgement of it and had to send a reminder? Why did nobody in the Department of Justice take action to stop this improper work practice, given that they knew about it? How far up the hierarchy in the Department did this knowledge go? Why was it not brought to the Minister's attention? Does the Minister feel that senior officials in the prison section of her Department should have brought this abuse to her attention? How can she justify the fact that no action was taken until an Opposition Deputy brought the matter to her attention?
The privilege of exchanging rosters has been available to staff in the prison service for many years. In October 1993 an order was issued with the objective of providing a framework for the operation of the facility, because the original circular did not envisage the ways in which the facility could be abused. From mid-1994 onwards the Department tried to tighten up the regulation of the facility to prevent abuses, and the Prison Officers' Association, the Governors and the Department were in constant contact. The POA did not want the facility removed, and did not want a general circular to the effect that only so many rosters could be exchanged. There have been ongoing negotiations with the Prison Officers' Association. I was out of the country when the Deputy's letter arrived, but I got it when I came back. I suspect the source of my information was the same as the Deputy's. The officials in my Department did everything they could to prevent abuses of this privilege. It did not prove possible.
When I became aware of the abuses of this facility in Limerick I said I wanted it stopped immediately. Those people were then informed they could no longer continue with that practice. The number of people involved seems to be between two and five. I have to be careful because the disciplinary code is being implemented. Clearly they were getting somebody else to do their work while running some kind of business or other activities outside the prison. Subsequent to being told they could not continue to do that at least one, if not two, went on sick leave but one has returned. I do not want to identify the particular officers. Deputy O'Donnell, whose source of information was from the prison, probably knows who these people are. This is a matter on which the Department was trying to tighten up. It was also the responsibility of the governor to ensure it was not manipulated or abused. It did not cost the State anything. It should not have happened and it is not happening now.
Will the Minister confirm that, despite the fact that her Department, the governor of the prison concerned and the Prison Officers' Association were aware of this abuse over a period of years in particular cases, she was made aware of it only when I told her on 6 September 1996? Will she agree that as Minister she should have been told this was going on because it is a matter over which she has political responsibility? That there was no cost to the State is beside the point. The point is that an abuse of work practices took place over a three year period which was not stopped and the Minister was not informed until she was made aware of it by my letter of 6 September. Does the Minister feel she should have been informed?
The circular that issued allowed people to swap their rosters. In the spirit of that circular people swapped rosters. When it became known in mid-1994 that people were swapping their rosters and doing so in a way that had not been envisaged in that circular the matter was taken up and tackled by the Department. I do not know whether the former Minister for Justice, Deputy Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, was told about it in mid-1994. That is a valid question. All I know is that I became aware of the abuse. I was aware that a system existed whereby people could swap the rosters but not that people had found this ingenious way of doing it. I became aware of it at the same time as the arrival of the Deputy's letter and I thank her for raising the matter with me. The governor was contacted immediately and at the end of September a new order issued to the governor concerning this abuse.
The Prison Officers' Association griped, held meetings, threatened votes and so on. It did not want the facility to be knocked because of its abuse by three, four or five officers. It was fighting to ensure the facility continued to exist for its members. However I insisted that it be changed and that those who had abused it be alerted that they could no longer use the facility. The facility is still available for use by officers for the reasons for which it was set up in 1993. An example of one of the reasons is the following: a prison officer told me that when his daughter was killed that facility allowed his colleagues to work his roster for him for a month so that he could remain at home with his family. This is a facility which is available to the fire service, the Garda Síochána and private industry. The truth is that officials in my Department were working on it all that time to tighten up on the abuses which have now stopped.
