Written Answers. - Industrial Disputes.
Brian O'Shea
Question:
62
Mr. O'Shea
asked the
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
the main features of his proposed cost control measures for the Prison Service; the steps he is taking to ensure that the implementation of these measures does not lead to an industrial dispute; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[28245/03]
I do not believe there is any disagreement in the House that the cost of running the Prison Service is excessive. There is a need to bring the costs under control. I have pointed out on a number of occasions that approximately 3,200 prison officers will cost between €60 million and €65 million in overtime payments this year, while 11,900 gardaí will cost us approximately €56 million. This has developed over a long period of time and has become quite complex and difficult to resolve. We have reached a point where the problem cannot be allowed to continue. We have come through a lengthy period of analysis and the time for action has come.
The Deputy has asked me to outline the main features of my proposed cost control measures for the Prison Service. There are two approaches to dealing with the range of problems facing the Prison Service – a consensus approach or a unilateral approach. I have made it clear in the House that my preference is for an agreed way forward which will be beneficial for management and staff. The Prison Service has pursued that line for some considerable time. Following five years of analysis and two years of discussions, a package of proposals for change was put to the Prison Officers Association. The package involves the proposed introduction of a new system of attendance based on the concept of annual hours combined with the introduction of a range of efficiencies recommended by an expert group, the staffing and operations review team, which examined operational practices in every prison and place of detention in the country.
The 2004 Estimates for the prison service provide for €203 million to fund staff costs which reflects the projected cost of the package proposed. I will not adopt a unilateral approach lightly, but I will do so if agreement is not reached between the Prison Officers Association and the management of the prison service before the end of the year. I have been forced to consider the unilateral approach as a direct consequence of the current impasse between the management and staff sides.
On 11 November 2003, the Government approved the progressive implementation of certain measures, while I will outline, with effect from 1 January 2004, in the event of a lack of agreement with the association on the proposed change agenda aimed at eliminating overtime payments and reducing other costs in the Prison Service. Staffing levels and overtime will be strictly capped at a level which will result in the annual expenditure provided for in the Estimates based on the offer made to the association. Fort Mitchel and the Curragh Place of Detention will be mothballed. A prior information notice, signalling my intention to invite tenders from contractors to provide a prisoner escort service to the prison service, will be published in the EU journal. Arrangements will be made for the transformation of the open centres at Loughan House and Shelton Abbey into post-release centres for the reintegration into society of prisoners on conditional temporary release. A competition will be held for the recruitment to a new entry level grade of prison officer.
The question of whether the implementation of measures leads to an industrial dispute is not one over which an employer has full control. A dispute involves at least two sides. I have always sought to urge management and staff to address the unsustainable overtime problem in the Prison Service. At the Annual Conference of the Prison Officers Association in May 2003, I asked both sides to seek to reach an agreement on the issue within 90 days. When this failed, I agreed to the engagement of two eminent industrial relations experts, namely Mr. Bill Attley, a former General Secretary of SIPTU, and Mr. Joe McGovern, a former Assistant Secretary of the Department of Finance, to facilitate further negotiations. In mid-September, the facilitators reported back that the two sides were too far apart for the gap to be bridged at that time. An improved offer was put to the union in early October, however, based on some progress made in the talks. A ballot rejecting the offer took place during October.
I remain open to an agreement being reached. As recently as last Thursday, I met national officers of the Prison Officers Association to explore how negotiations might be advanced. I found this meeting useful and I hope that progress may be made on the proposals put forward by the official side. In the absence of an agreed way forward before 1 January next, however, the Government decision of 11 November will have to be implemented.
