Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 23 Jun 2005

Vol. 605 No. 1

Adjournment Debate.

Job Losses.

Mr. O’Connor

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me, in partnership with my colleague, Deputy Crowe, to raise this issue. As two Tallaght-based Deputies, we are deeply concerned about the situation whereby 28 employees of the Tallaght community development initiative, on the job initiative scheme, have been given notice that their contracts of employment will be terminated on 1 July next.

After the excitement of the day one would expect some of us to be calm, and I will be as calm as I can, but at the same time, I must admit to the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, whom I welcome, that I am particularly agitated about this issue. It is a blow for Tallaght and although I do not want to exaggerate the issue, it has been brewing for some time. The 28 job initiative scheme workers employed by Tallaght community development initiative are involved in a number of important projects in the Tallaght area, dealing with disadvantage and other issues. A number of them are in the RAPID area.

To give the Minister of State a flavour of these projects, they include the Tallaght Travellers' homework project, the Swan family centre based in Alderwood in Springfield, St. Kevin's resource centre in Kilnamanagh, Firhouse parish centre, the citizens' information centre, which launched a new booklet in Tallaght yesterday, the Kilinarden community centre, St. Mailruan's intercultural drop-in centre in the village, the community forum and Brittas national school.

One can see these projects are very dependent on the job initiative scheme. They have been successful, adding to services in Tallaght and providing tremendous facilities. The workers were completely shocked when out of the blue on Monday last they got notice that their employment was to be terminated. This must be taken in the context that both I and Deputy Crowe have been told that other sponsors are available and have confirmed to FÁS that they can take on the workers.

There are other projects that will facilitate these workers.

This is a case of FÁS bureaucracy running amok. I depend on the Minister of State to sort out this matter for us. I appeal to him to get involved. I acknowledge the interest the Minister of State has shown since we brought the matter to his attention yesterday. I acknowledge also the interest of the Minister and the Department officials who have been in touch with us. Somebody has to sort out the FÁS management and bureaucracy. It should be made clear to the management that Tallaght is not prepared to stand idly by and let 28 important JI jobs be lost. The projects would suffer hugely and the infrastructure in Tallaght would be at a loss. Ministerial intervention is vital in this case. I do not want to tell the Minister of State what to do but FÁS management should be summoned tomorrow morning and the Department should make it clear that this can be sorted out. I do not want to be here next week lamenting the loss of these jobs and trying to raise the matter in another way. The solution is obvious. It is clear from the information made available to us that other projects are in place that can cater for this situation.

I ask the Minister of State to pay special attention to this matter and intervene. These are important projects. A number of them are in RAPID areas, which I understood would be guaranteed. I am making a special appeal to the Minister of State and I hope he will accept the points I have made to him and save these 28 JI jobs in Tallaght.

Mr. Crowe

Will the Minister of State accept the importance of the projects my colleague, Deputy O'Connor, has outlined? I cannot stress strongly enough the importance of these different projects to the community in the greater Tallaght area, some of which extend into Brittas. They are all doing vital work. I described this announcement as a body blow to the communities and community groups in those areas. Many of them will do vital work with young children in the area over the summer months. Groups like Tallaght Citizens' Information Service provide information on social welfare problems and so on. People use that service constantly but it is due to lose some of its people. Deputy O'Connor spoke about the important work the Tallaght Travellers homework project is doing with the homework clubs and so on. This announcement appears to be a contradiction in that respect. The Minister of State will be aware that the education committee has discussed the problem of disadvantage and the importance of giving young people an opportunity to break out of the cycle of poverty and disadvantage. There are people working in those areas.

This is an unusual situation in that the TCDI board resigned en masse and we are told the jobs will be terminated from 1 July. We are being told by FÁS that there is no official policy in place to account for the JI managing agents terminating their work. There is a contradiction here, and it struck me when talking to people about this matter, in that we had a statement from the Minister, Deputy Martin, on 10 November 2004, the headline of which read: “Martin Introduces Changes to FÁS Employment Scheme.” He said there would be no compulsory lay-offs yet 28 people are facing redundancy. All the staff have been asked by FÁS if they want to take redundancy. We are told constantly that these people do not want to work but they want to work in their communities, and they are doing vital work. No one wants to accept the lay-offs.

I thought the uncertainty around this issue had been addressed following the statement from the Minister, Deputy Martin. Why is this situation happening? Will the uncertainty around the JI, community employment and the social economy programmes be raised again? Last year, Members from all parties in this House raised the issue of these programmes being terminated and the effect of that on communities, particularly disadvantaged communities. There is a contradiction in this situation because the Government statement was to the effect that it was concerned about disadvantage yet it allowed these cutbacks in the area.

I do not know whether what has happened is a blip in the system but we want to know the position. I realise the Minister will read from a script when replying but I hope it will not be the usual type of reply to the effect that the matter is being examined and so on. We want answers here tonight. If that is not possible, we are asking the Minister of State and his Department to resolve this situation sooner rather than later and before these jobs are lost because it will have enormous effect on the people living in those communities, not just on the families of the people working in JI schemes.

This is a body blow to the people in Tallaght. There is an opportunity, even at this late stage, to resolve this matter. Why can the people on these schemes not be transferred to another sponsoring agency? That is the important question. If mechanisms or structures have to be put in place to allow that to happen, I ask the Minister of State to put those structures in place and not allow this action be mirrored in other communities throughout the State because that is what will happen. FÁS appears to be taking a strong line on this issue. We are all looking for compromise, which can resolve the situation. I hope the Minister of State and his Department can resolve it.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Killeen)

I thank the Deputies for raising this issue on the Adjournment.

The active labour market programmes undertaken by FÁS comprise job initiative, community employment and the social economy programme. Between them these programmes provide about 25,000 places. The vast majority of participants, in the order of 21,600, are on community employment.

Job Initiative is an active labour market programme aimed specifically at those over 35 years of age who have been unemployed for the previous five years. Participants are employed on a full-time basis. In the region of 1,900 participants are currently employed on JI.

The programme was introduced as a pilot programme in 1996-97 with 1,000 places available. It operated as a three-year work experience programme with the objective of progressing its participants into jobs in the open labour market. The allocation of places to individual projects is an administrative matter for FÁS. Currently, local managing agents manage Job Initiative projects, usually at partnership level. These managing agents are legally and administratively the employers of the participants in the JI context.

There was extensive consultation with the social partners and key stakeholders last year on the future direction of FÁS labour market programmes. Following the conclusion of the review process, my colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, announced that with effect from 10 November 2004 there would be no compulsory lay-offs on JI. Participants employed on the programme would have their contracts renewed for a further term. In circumstances where people leave JI voluntarily, the community organisations may replace them with CE participants. These arrangements are intended to ensure the maintenance of the provision of a network of valuable community services throughout the country.

It is intended that available resources will fund additional community employment positions and other improvements to the programme, which it is believed will provide better outcomes for the long-term unemployed and other disadvantaged groups. The CE programme is currently being restructured by FÁS to better meet the needs of the individual participants. The new approach will include a new application and assessment process for CE sponsors and an individual learner plan for participants.

I am informed by FÁS that the Tallaght Community Development Initiative, which is the managing agent on behalf of FÁS, does not wish to continue to manage the project and that the TCDI itself — and I stress this point — has decided on its own initiative to disband the company with effect from Friday, 1 July 2005. This was not a decision taken by FÁS. Furthermore, I am informed by FÁS that it was only informed of this decision on Monday, 20 June 2005. In the meantime, FÁS is using every effort in seeking out other placement possibilities for the JI supported workers and the continuation of the services provided by the company. FÁS has already met representatives of the managing agent and further meetings are planned to discuss a way forward. I have asked FÁS to keep me informed of developments.

I would point out that Exchequer funding is providing more than 25,000 places on FÁS employment programmes this year at a cost in the region of €368 million, of which €293 million is in respect of CE.

Irish Prison Service.

Mr. Perry

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this matter. I ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that Loughan House, Blacklion, County Cavan, be allowed to remain open. The closure of this facility would result in a loss of jobs in the region which would have direct impact on counties Sligo and Leitrim. The prison facility, which has been open since 1972, remains one of the most efficiently run prisons while providing a high quality service and standard of care and rehabilitation, which I witnessed on a visit to the Loughan House facility. Despite this, Loughan House is due for closure this autumn.

It has been well documented in recent years that the Prison Service faces a real crisis. Closing one of the success stories is not the answer. The prison inspector, Mr. Justice Kinlen, was highly complimentary of the management and quality care that Loughan House provides. It provides an open setting which is difficult to maintain, yet the prison officers do a fantastic job at enforcing discipline, rehabilitating inmates and keeping order.

The Government is trying to sell the idea of decentralisation. Closing Loughan House flies in the face of this. The Minister, Deputy McDowell, has been quoted as wanting to create more quality time for families of prison officers by allowing them to spend more time at home. However, if Loughan House closes, prison officers and their families will be decentralised from their home base throughout the country.

If there were arguments for the closure of the prison on the basis of malfunction, scandal, lack of care, budgetary extravagance or such like, there would be a logical reason for action. However, the Committee of Public Accounts recently heard that the Loughan House facility gave good value for money with regard to location and suitability for the rehabilitation of prisoners. There is no reason for the closure. The prison officers at Loughan House have endured working overtime without payment and facilitated cost-cutting by engaging in voluntary staff rescheduling, agreeing transfers to Castlerea Prison when it opened as well as accepting a total restructuring of the prison to ensure its efficiency would be paramount. The officers have also worked out an agreement with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform whereby they would work with a maximum of 50 inmates after the appropriate number of staff had transferred.

The closure would be a travesty and a scandal of the highest order in a Border region. We will not stand idly by and let it happen. I have experience of the facility and the dedication and commitment of its staff to the rehabilitation of inmates. It is basically an open prison. Given that the Minister intends to spend €130 million on a relocation in Dublin, the closure would be outrageous. In the past year and a half, a considerable amount of taxpayers' money has been invested in Loughan House.

It is extraordinary that the Minister has sounded the death knell for Loughan House and indicated it will close by autumn of this year. I appeal to him. This is a critical investment in a Border county and its closure would give all the wrong signals. At a time when decentralisation is being discussed, we have a committed staff who are prepared to work the roster and give value for money.

There was significant debate at the Committee of Public Accounts about prison overtime. The officers have agreed to facilitate this and work with the Minister to ensure there will be value for money. I hope he has positive news for all concerned, prisoners as well as staff. Prisoners also enjoy the facility which has rehabilitated many of them. Staff have given the commitment to work in this centre to ensure its viability. I hope the Minister can tell the House the proposed closure this autumn will not happen.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. B. Lenihan)

I make this reply to Deputy Perry on behalf of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell. I am grateful to the Deputy for raising the matter. The Deputy will be aware a programme of change for the Prison Service, which was the subject of intensive discussions with the Prison Officers Association over the past four years, came to a conclusion in April when prison staff rejected a comprehensive and generous package of proposals at ballot. The Deputy will also be aware that the future of Loughan House and the other open centre at Shelton Abbey is inextricably linked to this development.

The implications for Loughan House and Shelton Abbey of failure to reach agreement on essential change in the Prison Service have been well known since November 2003. At that time, the Government approved a range of alternative measures for achieving cost efficiencies in the service, including the transformation of the two Prison Service open centres at Loughan House and Shelton Abbey into half-way houses under the aegis of another organisation.

The simple fact is that the Minister engaged in a process with the Prison Officers Association on a partnership basis over a lengthy period with a view to effecting change across the service which would be beneficial to both management and staff while at the same time addressing the chronic overtime problem which has dogged the service across the lifetimes of several Governments. The Minister has been exceptionally patient throughout this process. Since he took office in 2002, he has allowed ample space and time for a mutually acceptable negotiated settlement to be reached between the Prison Service and the Prison Officers Association.

Following on the rejection of the earlier offer in October 2003, the Minister agreed to use the full range of industrial relations machinery available in the State, including the conciliation services of the Labour Relations Commission and the ultimate arbitration facilities of the Civil Service Arbitration Board. That process continued over a 16-month period. It involved long and difficult negotiations leading to a substantial arbitration award.

Despite reservations which the Minister held about the deal that emerged, which were shared by the Minister for Finance and the rest of his colleagues in Government, he nevertheless accepted that the overall package represented a workable way forward for the future. However, prison officers made their position very clear when they rejected the deal by a very significant margin, despite the fact that the full range of industrial relations machinery had been utilised to the full, including the ultimate step of arbitration, and despite the deal being wholeheartedly endorsed by the Prison Officers Association national executive.

By any standards, the deal on offer can only be viewed as very attractive. It included a pensionable operational allowance equivalent to 8% of basic pay and lump sum payments amounting to €13,750 per officer in return for the level of change envisaged. Under the deal, a basic grade prison officer would have potentially earned almost €70,000 per year at the top of the scale. The main benefit to the taxpayer would have been a significant reduction in the bill for additional hours working in the Prison Service, predictable future costs and a more efficient service for the future. At the same time, staff would have secured attractive, stable and predictable overall rates of remuneration.

The Minister never made a secret of the consequences of failure to reach an agreement and they will come as no surprise to prison staff. The Minister is left with no option but to proceed immediately with the agenda already approved by Government to ensure the Prison Service is run as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible. That agenda is now in place and steps to implement it are already under way.

The Curragh and Fort Mitchel places of detention are now closed and will not reopen. All the staff from those institutions have been reassigned to other institutions. The two Prison Service open centres at Loughan House and Shelton Abbey will cease to function in due course and halfway houses under the management of another organisation will be put in place at both locations. A prior indicative notice has already been published in the EU Journal so the time needed to complete the tendering process can be minimised. Staff serving in these institutions will be redeployed permanently to other institutions.

Legislation to outsource the prisoner escort service, which has already been approved by Government, was published recently and will be enacted without delay. Arrangements to invite tenders for outsourcing of this service will proceed in parallel. This has already begun with the publication in the EU Journal of a prior indicative notice. It is expected, following this process, that a contract will be signed by the end of September. This will have a major impact on overtime expenditure in the Prison Service given that 30% of all overtime earnings is attributable to prisoner escorts.

Measures to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the service through the use of new technology such as CCTV, automated gates, cellular vans and video links will be rolled out as a matter of priority. Work in this regard is already well advanced. In the meantime, the Minister instructed the Prison Service to apply strict monthly overtime budgets in each institution which will be rigidly controlled. He has already met prison governors and given them specific instructions in that regard.

As regards the current state of play, the position, following on the rejection of the proposal for organisational change by prison staff, is that the Prison Officers Association sought a meeting with the Minister at which it indicated that the proposal might have been accepted had the banding arrangements for the working of additional hours been different. It was suggested that the bands could be re-jigged in a cost neutral fashion so more staff could opt out of additional hours and more staff could opt to work a higher number of hours. The Minister indicated it was open to the Prison Officers Association to make whatever submissions it might wish to make in that regard but it needed to be clearly understood he was not in the business of renegotiating the proposal for organisational change which has already been arbitrated upon by the Civil Service Arbitration Board. He made clear he was not prepared to compromise the integrity of the industrial relations machinery which has served the State so well and must continue to serve our public services into the future. The Prison Officers Association submitted proposals for the realignment of the additional hours bands. Having considered these proposals, the Minister was satisfied that they would fundamentally alter the deal that was on the table and would seriously compromise the integrity of the industrial relations machinery, in particular the arbitration process. In these circumstances, he had no option but to indicate to the Prison Officers Association that its proposals were totally unacceptable. In this context, the director general of the Irish prison service issued to it a letter to that effect last Friday, 17 June 2005. That is the position as it stands.

The Minister has gone as far as he can with this process. The end of the line has been reached in terms of discussions on the proposal and the Minister will not be led down the path of renegotiation. It is regrettable that the considered and painstakingly developed approach negotiated over such a long period may not now be realised. The Minister's preference has always been for an agreed way forward. He has no option now but to move ahead, with or without agreement, to implement whatever other measures are required to realise the necessary cost efficiencies with all due urgency.

The Minister points out that the director general of the prison service indicated to the Prison Officers Association in the letter that issued on 17 June that it might be useful for it to meet the Minister in order that he might clarify his intentions. To date the Prison Officers Association has not responded to this letter, although the Minister is expecting a response within the next few days.

Concerning Loughan House, were the Minister to implement his current stated position, the facility would continue to be used.

Juvenile Diversion Projects.

Mr. M. Higgins

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for giving me permission to raise the circumstances in which the Bris project in the Westside part of Galway city, part of the diversion programme of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, was terminated; the manner in which the programme was terminated; such plans as exist for the resumption of the project and the timescale for such, given that a number of activities had been planned for the participants during the summer period.

Bris was one of 64 projects that are part of a diversion programme which is very successful. Perhaps more than 88% of participants do not end up in juvenile crime statistics. Therefore, it was a great shock to find that this project, which had been working very successfully, was terminated. At one time it dealt with 100 youths and this figure fluctuated down as far as 42.

On 31 May it was suggested that the sponsoring organisation Le Chéile, which undertook the management of the project, was to be replaced by the Galway Youth Federation. On the occasion of the supposed handing over from one management group to another, six gardaí, a Garda inspector and others arrived and proceeded to remove files, computers and other material from the project offices. This has led to a serious situation concerning the interpretation of this action, the manner in which it was executed and how it affects the permanent worker, who had such a good relationship with the families and the young people involved.

I live near this area and have visited this project. I am very familiar with it. The young people were due to take part in a five-a-side soccer tournament, sailing classes had been organised and now there is nothing. If I inquire I can be told that these young people have not fallen out of the concern of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and that the gardaí are in touch with those who are young offenders. The Bris project was concerned not just with those referred as young offenders but also those who were at risk. That is the essence of the project.

What happens now? Why was an alternative sponsoring organisation not found? Why was alternative management not investigated? Who was consulted? Was the city council consulted? It was involved at one stage and paid the salary of a second worker on the project. The parents and those who live on the local authority estates all around that area have signed a petition asking that the project be restored. There is no information available as to whether it will be restored.

There are successful diversion programmes run, for example, by Foróige in Ballybane and Knocknacarra in the north part of the city. Was Foróige asked if it could extend its resources to step in where Le Chéile stepped out? What was the arrangement with Le Chéile? What was the basis for the sudden departure of one group of people and what was the basis for accepting that another group was willing? I understand that after 31 May a letter was produced suggesting that the Galway Youth Federation was now not proceeding.

The net effect is that young people and families have been left at risk and are not being provided for. It is an appalling consequence. I hope another group can be invited as an interim measure. Could the liaison service have run the projects? Could a co-operative have been established? There were volunteers — successful people from very deprived backgrounds who had come to this project with serious problems, some of whom had made it all the way through the third level system. They now have nothing to volunteer their services to, the children have nowhere to come, the parents have nothing to send their children to and the entire community has suffered.

Around midday, six gardaí, a Garda inspector and others arrived and began moving equipment. The professional full-time worker there had long experience of working in youth work and had a MSc in sociology and youth work from Swansea University. He was not told what was happening, he was simply told he no longer had a job.

I ask the Minister to answer these questions.

Mr. B. Lenihan

I thank Deputy Michael D. Higgins for raising this issue on the Adjournment. I agree with him that the diversion projects are an important and useful part of our juvenile justice system. In fact, I appointed a committee to monitor the effectiveness of the diversion programmes, which has now reported. I will publish that report in the next few weeks. One of the features it establishes is that the Deputy is quite correct in stating that the diversion programmes are very successful in diverting a large number of youths from the offending path.

As the Deputy is aware, the Garda youth diversion projects are community-based, multi-agency crime prevention initiatives, which seek to divert young people from becoming involved or further involved in anti-social or criminal behaviour. The projects provide suitable activities to facilitate personal development, promote civic responsibility and improve the prospects of employment. The projects also contribute to improving the quality of life within communities and enhancing the relationship between the Garda Síochána and local communities. The projects are funded by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and administered by the community relations section of the Garda Síochána. The Minister and I are committed to their continuing development and also, as resources permit, to their expansion.

The first projects, originally known as Garda special projects, were established in 1991 following a sudden outbreak of lawlessness in a number of communities which resulted in street violence and public order offences, including the unauthorised taking of cars. These offences were committed mainly by young people and occurred in communities that faced many problems. By October 2001, the number of projects had reached the existing level of 64. Many of the projects established in recent years were facilitated by the allocation of funding under the national development plan.

The rapid expansion in project numbers created quality assurance challenges to the operation and management of the projects. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform commissioned an evaluation report on the Garda youth diversion projects, which suggested that a set of guidelines was required to develop a planned and strategic approach. As a result, in 2001 the Department commissioned the centre for social and educational research at the Dublin Institute of Technology, Rathmines, to prepare comprehensive guidelines which were launched by the Minister in May 2003. The guidelines set out best practice for the establishment, operation, administration and monitoring of projects and best practice concerning preventative activities and interventions in dealing with marginalised young people.

The Garda youth diversion projects are established by the Garda Síochána following a process of consultation with local community interests and youth service providers. Projects are established in response to local crime problems with the objective of giving local communities some degree of ownership in tackling the problems faced by their areas. The management committees are representative of the various interests involved. Participation in the projects is voluntary.

The primary project target group, which forms the majority of project participants, comprises young people who have entered the Garda juvenile diversion programme and are considered at risk of remaining within the justice system. A secondary project target group comprises young persons who, although they have not been officially cautioned, have come to the attention of the Garda Síochána, the community or local agencies as a result of their behaviour and are considered at risk of entering the justice system at a future date.

The number of participants in each project differs according to local circumstances and resources. It is estimated that the 64 Garda youth diversion projects cater for approximately 3,150 persons in the current year. The young people involved, as well as their parents, community members, local gardaí and project co-ordinators, are overwhelmingly of the view that the projects are beneficial.

Funding of €5.471 million has been allocated to Garda youth diversion projects this year. Up to recently, there were three projects operating in County Galway: the Junction project in Ballinasloe; the Bris project — to which the Deputy referred — in Galway city; and the Bán project in Ballybane. The Bris project commenced in May 2001.

Le Chéile, already referred to by the Deputy, is a voluntary organisation situated in Galway which agreed to become the employer of the project staff. It was responsible for all issues regarding contract of employment, salary and line management. The activities of the project were overseen by a project committee made up of representatives of Le Chéile, the Garda Síochána, Galway City Council, local clergy and the local vocational education committee. A total of €75,374 was allocated by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to the project for this year.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has been informed by the Garda authorities that the Bris Garda youth diversion project terminated on 31 May 2005, following the withdrawal of service by the employer of the project staff, Le Chéile.

Mr. M. Higgins

That is so.

Mr. B. Lenihan

The Minister was further informed that Le Chéile informed the Garda Síochána, by letter dated 25 April 2005, of its intention to withdraw from the project and that it had offered a severance package to the co-ordinator, which was accepted.

The Garda authorities instructed local gardaí to ensure that all property purchased by the project with public funding and files on participants were accounted for. This property has been taken into Garda custody and all public funds unspent are under the control of the Garda Síochána.

It is anticipated that the project will be evaluated in accordance with the guidelines in the near future. Following this evaluation, a decision will be made on the feasibility of starting a new project under the Garda youth diversion project guidelines. As Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform with responsibility for juvenile justice, I will raise this matter in the Department and will take a personal interest in it.

Mr. M. Higgins

I thank the Minister of State and appreciate what he has said. Meanwhile, there is no sailing or soccer but I appreciate that he will raise the question with the Department.

The Dáil adjourned at 8.50 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 24 June 2005.