Mr. Stephen Delaney, president of the Association of Retired Prison Officers is joined by Mr. Jerry Dunne, Mr. Brian Lally, Mr. Tom Sharkey, Mr. Joe Blanch, Mr. James O'Reilly and Mr. Martin Ryan. On behalf of the joint committee I welcome the delegation and thank its members for attending today's meeting. Before the discussion commences, I advise that while comments of members are protected by parliamentary privilege, those of visitors are not. Members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the committee or Houses. We will commence proceedings with a short presentation by Mr. Delaney which will be followed by an open discussion with members.
Association of Retired Prison Officers: Presentation.
Deputy M.J. Nolan sends his apologies, as he must attend a meeting with the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan.
I invite Mr. Delaney to make his presentation.
Mr. Stephen Delaney
It is a great honour to appear before the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. We are grateful for the opportunity to present our case to this very busy committee.
We have circulated a document outlining the history of the rent allowance and its inclusion in the calculation of pensions, the basis of our claim, the cost factor and relevant documentation, consisting of extracts from the Programme for Competitiveness and Work 1997, and so on. Copies of the following correspondence are also supplied; (a) letter from the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, to the Taoiseach in response to representations; (b) letter from the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, to Deputy John Moloney in response to representations; (c) the reply of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, to a parliamentary question tabled by Deputy Bruton; (d) a reply from the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Finance seeking clarification on a parliamentary question tabled by Deputy Fleming; and last but by no means least, a list of recommendations from the Commission on Public Service Pensions.
Rent allowance or lodging allowance, as it was so called, was introduced into the prison system in the 19th century. Prior to that time, prisons in Ireland and elsewhere were classed as local authority prisons under the control of local magistrates. In 1830 an Act of Parliament was introduced by the then Home Secretary, Mr. Robert Peel, to establish a police constabulary and prison system under a general prisons board, with its headquarters in London. The Royal Irish Constabulary was established, hence the name Peelers.
The lodging allowance, which today is known as rent allowance, was introduced at that time and this remained the position until the establishment of the Free State. For obvious reasons, prison officers were sent from Great Britain to Ireland and as no official accommodation was available, they received a lodging allowance. Rent allowance was introduced for the Garda Síochána after the Garda Síochána Act 1924. Both the Garda and prison service received the same allowance and it is identical now, as we speak.
In 1960, all allowances were consolidated into pay in the entire public service. In lieu of rent allowance, an element was added to pay. This is clearly defined in an agreed report of 1961.
In 1972, a rent allowance separate from pay was again introduced for prison officers. In the aftermath of the Conroy commission report, a rent allowance for gardaí was reintroduced. Prior to 1947, Garda pay followed that awarded to prison officers step by step. However after 1947, the order was reversed and prison officers followed gardaí. The position remained the same until gardaí sought arbitration in 1982 under Hugh Geoghegan who was then a senior counsel and is now a High Court judge. He made a statement on the matter. Gardaí sought to make pensionable all allowances for unsocial hours and premium payments but, unfortunately for them, were unsuccessful. While Mr. Geoghegan accepted that any allowance of a regular and permanent nature ought to be pensionable, he dismissed the claim in respect of unsocial hours and premium payments as they were attendance payments only. One must attend to receive such payments, unlike rent allowances which form part and parcel of a garda's pay.
When a prison officer is out sick, he or she is paid rent allowance, but where he or she is suspended, it is deducted accordingly. The allowance is also subject to tax and widow's and orphans' deductions. The allowance is distinct from any other. It was made pensionable for gardaí in 1982 under Mr. Geoghegan, after which time prison officers tried valiantly to have it made pensionable for them. However, paragraph 42 of the terms of the conciliation and arbitration scheme made no provision for the discussion of matters relating to superannuation, particularly rent allowance. The prison officers failed to have this circumstance changed on a number of occasions. In 1988 they went to the arbitration board, by subterfuge according to the Department of Finance, where their application was rejected by the chairman. The only redeeming feature of the process was the acknowledgement by the chairman that rent allowance was a legitimate matter for consideration. However, as the prison officers were before the board incorrectly, he could not make a recommendation.
Since 1988 rent allowance has been increased in line with pay and national wage agreements. Since the inception of the conciliation and arbitration scheme in 1953, an allowance in the nature of pay has always been pensionable. It is a pity Senator O'Toole is not here as he would be fully acquainted with what I am discussing. I mean no disrespect in saying this. Despite the fact that rent allowance is treated in the same way as an allowance in the nature of pay, it is not defined that way. Following the 1988 arbitration decision, the Department of Finance refused to allow further discussion of the matter. Prison officers did not achieve pensionability of rent allowance until the Programme for Competitiveness and Work was agreed in 1997 and the Prison Officers Association was forced to accept it. While the Chairman might laugh at the idea of the association being forced to do something given the militancy of the group, members were forced to accept the measure as the Department of Finance threw in a carrot through the conciliation scheme. The alternative at that time would have been to strike. The prison officers gave way and agreed a cut-off point of January 1993, which meant that if an individual retired on that date, he or she benefited from pensionability of the allowance, but did not do so if he or she retired in December 1992. The two individuals may have joined the service together and served for the same duration.
Whenever representations are made to the committee, the Minister, the Taoiseach or others, including officials in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, refer to repercussions involving gardaí and military personnel. The latest clanger resulting from a response to the Chairman was that teachers would also be involved. The Department has further stated the PCW agreement cannot be reopened. We met the then Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, on the matter who replied by letter to state the agreement could not be reopened. We will prove to the committee that the agreement was never closed. It commenced under a working party in 1992 and was finalised in part in 1997. It continued until the organisational change of work practices was completed in the Prison Service in 2005. The only concession by the Department of Finance was made in response to a question from the Chairman who asked whether the PCW agreement was closed or open. He received a vague answer, in which, nevertheless, it was agreed that he was referring to the organisational change programme. We have documentation which proves the agreement was never closed and is ongoing. The Department states it cannot be reopened, but it was never closed.
A division has been called in the Dáil, which we were not expecting. Most members must leave. We will resume from where we left off after the vote.
Sitting suspended at 4.15 p.m. and resumed at 4.35 p.m.
I invite Mr. Delaney to continue with his presentation.
Mr. Delaney
I will narrow down the rest of what I have to say because I fully understand it gets boring. I would like to mention a few points.
The committee probably wonders why we have not had pensionability for this rent allowance. The reason is the PCW agreement prison officers were forced to sign. We have made various overtures since. The Department of Finance continually maintains, first, that there would be repercussions in respect of the Garda Síochána, the military and teachers; second, that the Commission on Public Service Pensions dealt with this issue in detail; and, third, that when an allowance is made pensionable in the public service for the first time, it is never backdated. In regard to one of those, we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, through documentation and otherwise, that it never actually closed but continued all the time up to 2005.
The Commission on Public Service Pensions never dealt with the issue. Its terms of reference were to look into public service employees of today coupled with public service employees of tomorrow. It recommended the deduction of 1%, which never materialised. The position is that it never dealt with this issue. On behalf of my colleagues, I take strong exception to the Department of Finance throwing in that clanger which gives the impression that the issue was dealt with. I referred to Senator O'Toole because he was on ICTU's side in that debate and would readily agree with what I have said. I want to bring it home that the Commission on Public Service Pensions never dealt with the issue. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, was informed by his officials to that effect. The Chairman was also informed by way of reply to a parliamentary question.
Deputy Bruton was told that the PCW had a ceiling on cost increasing claims. That is not correct either. Section B of the agreement put a ceiling of 3% but section A allowed for changes in work structures, flexibility and change. The Prison Officers Association went down that road. It rejected the offer of 3%. It rejected offers of 4.5%. and 7% but accepted an offer of 10.3%. Where is the 3% ceiling? There was no ceiling. Under the PCW prison officers are today in receipt of an 8% operational allowance which does not apply to pensioners. The assertion that the allowances were made pensionable for the first time is not correct. This allowance has been part of our history for nearly 200 years. It is not a new allowance. I will accept that when a new allowance is made pensionable, it takes effect from the current date. Only those in service on or after that date will derive benefit. However, when the PCW was agreed in 1997, the Department of Finance agreed to make retrospective the pensionability of the rent allowance from 1 January 1993.
While I do not want to delay the committee any longer, the association and the people we represent are very aggrieved. I refer to the cost factor. Apart from the alleged repercussions for the Garda and the military, the actual cost factor comes to approximately €160,000 a year.
Unfortunately, when we started out on this escapade seven years ago, we lived in ignorance of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service and were unaware of the possibility of appearing before such a forum. Of the approximately 158 people with whom we started out, approximately 107 remain as we are dying off. The vast majority of those concerned are in their 70s or 80s; some are in their 90s. The position is simple. We have been unjustly treated. The Department of Finance is hiding behind this cut-off point. It is not right; it is morally unjust. Some of the people to whom I refer joined the Prison Service in the late 1930s or early 1940s and served in the Emergency from 1939 to 1945. With their widows, they worked for 12 to 15 weeks on the trot without a day off — this was before the introduction of overtime. In January or February they were told to take their holidays or time off, which came to 12 or 15 days.
I refer to the widows of such officers who reared big families and had no say in the matter. Eventually, when there was some maturity in the system and families ceased residing in official accommodation, they were in receipt of a rent allowance. They have entitlements. We appeal respectfully to members to help us to rectify this injustice. The sum of €20 a week would mean a great deal to a widow.
I thank Mr. Delaney. Is it correct to state there are only approximately 107 people involved?
Mr. Delaney
Unfortunately so.
Did the association ever take its case to the Ombudsman?
Mr. Delaney
The Ombudsman's terms of reference do not provide for it. I made the effort.
Does Mr. Delaney know the basis on which the Ombudsman's terms of reference lack such a provision?
Mr. Delaney
Public service pensions cannot be dealt with under the Ombudsman's terms of reference, which is puzzling.
The joint committee will make inquiries in this regard.
I understand the Ombudsman cannot deal with industrial relations issues.
I congratulate Mr. Delaney on his clear presentation. I wish to clarify two points. First, the papers to hand refer to an adjudication prior to the 1997 agreement. What was the nature of that adjudication? Is there a record available in which the various issues that now seem to be in dispute between the Department of Finance and the association were weighed against each other? Second, the Department effectively has stated the Commission on Public Service Pensions did not come out in the association's favour. Did the association make a claim or did the commission invite a presentation from it?
Mr. Delaney
No. We never made a representation and were never invited to so do. Moreover, through the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the Prison Officers Association formed part of the delegation of public service unions in respect of pensions in general. My son was one of the representatives and there was no discussion in this regard. We are very annoyed about this.
The adjudication prior to 1997——
Mr. Delaney
It was an ad hoc arbitration because no agreement could be reached on the 3% ceiling. As matters developed, an adjudication board stated that if the official and staff sides could not reach agreement, it would be prepared to make a recommendation. As it happened, on the third or fourth attempt, both sides agreed. The total amount agreed came to 10.3%, with a long service increment which brought the total to approximately 12.7% in return for flexibility, change, modernisation, technology and so on. Although the adjudication board would have made a decision and told them it would do so, agreement was reached. However, part of the agreement was that they would continue to move towards the elimination of dependancy on overtime in the prison system. Hence, our point is——
The association has no route to arbitration at present.
Mr. Delaney
No.
I thank the delegation for making such a clear presentation to the joint committee. First, the delegates should ask again, while stressing the limited number involved in the claim, were it to be conceded. Second, has the association or the Department of Finance supplied members with an estimate of the likely gross and net cost? Some of those concerned would pay income tax on this entitlement. Thereafter, following the presentation made today, members should establish the numbers and likely cost involved and whether it would have any spill-over implications for other public servants. Members are highly conscious that the Department is normally extremely concerned about the likely spill-over into other areas, or that a concession will become a general principle.
If the delegation can provide answers for the joint committee on these three points, it would be helpful in putting precise questions to the Minister for Finance and his Department. Last week the Minister produced a budgetary outlook that indicated extremely favourable circumstances for the next three years. All are conscious that when people retired from the Prison Service, particularly those who finished their service more than ten or 15 years ago, conditions were often much tougher. We owe a duty to those who provided an important public service during those years. If members could concentrate on these three points and perhaps address them to the Minister and his Department, it might assist in bringing the matter to a conclusion.
Members will reiterate the same points. As Mr. Delaney noted, the cut-off point appears to be one of the key issues. It seems irrational that the review of pensions concentrated on the present and the future. Moreover, those involved are already declining in numbers. Mr. Delaney noted the decline from 158 to 107. I presume some of those concerned are widows who would have a partial rather than a full entitlement should this claim be granted. This point should also be noted.
It was said that repercussions could arise in regard to teachers. I did not realise teachers got a lodging allowance. Are there other groups of people who receive such an allowance? It is difficult to see how there could be repercussions when one is not comparing like with like. It has been said that 1992 is the cut-off point and 65 years is the age of retirement. It was also stated that the youngest person is 79. One does not even have to state it is an older group of people. It is plain that this is the case. It appears that the group has been an anomaly in terms of other comparators. We should examine how such anomalies can occur.
I am concerned about the Department of Finance giving inaccurate information. It appears that Sir Humphrey is at work in terms of what can or cannot be done. There is an unfairness here. If something was counted as part of the pay of prison officers, I cannot see why it should not also apply to former prison officers who are pensioners.
I join with my colleagues in welcoming the representatives of the Association for Retired Prison Officers. In the course of his later remarks, Mr. Delaney referred to the possibility that the story he related might be boring. I assure him that is not the case. The association is to be commended on its presentation. On a jocund note, I am sure in past times, colleagues of mine would not have applauded me for everything I am about to say. There might even be some today who would strongly disagree with me but I will not cloud my judgment of this issue.
I see it as an injustice. I firmly believe there is an inequality applying to those prison officers retiring post-January 1993 and those who retired prior to that cut-off date. This committee is duty bound to support and reflect this case to the Minister and to seek that it is addressed. It is not good enough to hide behind any agreement entered into in 1997 in regard to the Programme for Competitiveness and Work or any other agreement. If an injustice and an inequity are applied to retired prison officers that must be addressed. It should not be parked on the basis of some agreement.
I presume the wording of the agreement in the documentation circulated is an exact copy as it carries the signatures of both parties. I note they were both women — Alicia Darcy and Therese Carolan. If that is the case, I presume it was a typographical error that nobody signed this on behalf of the official side. I have gone through the document in advance of today's meeting. They both signed it on behalf of the staff side, even though one of them was not a member of the staff team. One can well ask if that throws the agreement into question, as of 24 June 1997. I do not know. That might be a minor distraction. Nevertheless, it is a point worth bearing in mind.
The document was signed off in June 1997 and the argument put forward is that retrospection does not apply. Clearly, there was retrospection, in so far as it went back to the beginning of 1993, so that argument does not hold. The fact that prison officers were rightly regarded as being on a par with gardaí shows there is also a major dichotomy as the position of gardaí applied from 1982 — 11 years prior to the implications of the 1997 agreement.
The rent allowance was of a permanent and regular nature from at least as far back as 1972, and it had applied for some period before that, so from at least 1972 it was of a permanent nature within the remuneration received by serving members of the Prison Service. Wearing my Deputy's hat and with my prior trade union experience in the Irish Bank Officials Association, without question I believe the committee should present the case.
Resolving this issue will not have any great effect. I do not mean any disrespect in using the term "depreciating number". That is not the motivation by which we should be looking at this issue. We should say it is unfortunate rather than taking comfort from the fact that the number is depreciating. If it is an injustice, it does not matter if it involves 150 people or 100 people, the bottom line remains that it is an injustice. The sum of money involved is small and that is the response that Deputy Bruton would get.
It is estimated in the document presented to us that €160,000 gross would be involved in an annual outlay. This is very small change. I agree with Mr. Delaney's point that it would make a marked difference for the individual retired officer and widows or widowers on a weekly basis. All of us should be cognisant and appreciative of that fact. The sum of €20 in pension terms is significant. We must be mindful of that fact.
I have reflected on all the points. I commend the retired prison officers on their presentation and their preparatory work in advance of same. I record my support for them. I suggest the Chairman, or any other member, should make a proposal to the committee that we will reflect positively on the case presented. I would support that. In the absence of the Chairman doing so, I will make a proposal to that effect.
I join with members in welcoming the president of the Association of Retired Prison Officers, Mr. Stephen Delaney, and his colleagues. I compliment them and the committee on the most comprehensive document presented. I had the opportunity to discuss the contents of the document in private with Mr. Delaney before yesterday's meeting. The case presented by Mr. Delaney on behalf of the retired prison officers is a genuine one.
We should cut to the chase, in so far as in 1997 two things happened that have had a detrimental effect on retired prison officers. The first is that an agreement was reached that was backdated by four years. By going back only four years, people who had retired prior to that were abandoned by the association. That was wrong. There is no point in saying anything else. The principle of backdating pay to retired staff has been established from 1993 to 1997. I do not know how many prison officers retired during that period but I am sure the number was substantial. The principle is established. These two points need to be highlighted.
A number of other important points need to be stated and favour the association's position. Apart from the human side which we should not overlook, we are talking about a diminishing responsibility in the Department — it is diminishing at an alarming pace, given the figures I received yesterday. We are talking in the main about people in their 70s and 80s, and some in their 90s. An agreement will involve perhaps fewer than 100 people by the time it is put in place. On humanitarian grounds and out of common decency to those who have given service to the country, the Prison Service and justice, through the implementation of court decisions, this case should be considered. The cost of dealing with it would be insignificant in these times.
I do not understand how the Garda review could include superannuation but the same procedure could not be adopted for prison officers. How did this regulation come about? The two parallel organisations had been operating on a similar pay structure — for many years prison officers were ahead of gardaí — but suddenly, following a review, one has an advantage over the other. How just is this? Is there is discrimination?
The information available to me is that the Commission on Public Service Pensions was not involved in this matter. That is clearly stated in correspondence that has emerged from the Department of Finance. This point needs to be nailed down.
I have dealt with some of the basic points regarding the prison officers' case. There are probably some knock-on effects, although I do not know how serious these are. Before I entered the meeting, I heard someone state they would like to know the overall costs involved. A figure of €152 million has been mentioned in that regard but I do not know how it was calculated. It seems to be an extraordinary figure, given the number of retired prison officers involved. We are talking about less than €200,000 per annum. How was a figure of €152 million arrived at? This question needs to be examined further.
As a member of the committee and one who worked in the trade union movement for some time, I support the genuine case made by the association. Some of the myths need to be examined. While I am not reflecting on any Minister, it is obvious there is a mindset in the Departments of Finance and Justice, Equality and Law Reform that this is an issue with which they just cannot step into the arena, but they should do so. The committee might be the catalyst to begin that process. I support the case made and hope this will be the unanimous decision of the committee.
I thank the association for its presentation. I will offer a slightly different way of considering the matter. One can argue about justice and injustice. There is justice according to the letter of the law and justice in a larger sense. Sometimes it is more productive not to argue too much about the letter of the law or the letter of the agreement but to make the larger case. I am struck by the fact that at budget time Government parties like to believe the Oireachtas has been generous to pensioners. In recent years, by and large, it has been. The association's case is not the only one, as there are ex-post office workers and others in similar situations. However, in this case the letter of the law is that of a law laid down at least ten years ago when the financial situation and prospects could not have been foreseen to have become as rosy as they have.
The association's members worked in much tougher conditions than those which obtain today and with less remuneration, fewer allowances and so on. The sum of money we are discussing, as with most similar cases, is small. I am open to correction but we are talking about a sum of approximately €1,200 or €1,250 per individual per year, which figure is based on dividing the sum by the 107 staff, although the claims may be of different sizes. In any case, it is a small sum per individual. I would like to think the State would consider this matter on a "without prejudice" basis and on a basis of magnanimity in order to do justice to some of our older public servants rather than argue too much about whether the Department did or did not misrepresent the position. One can sometimes get bogged down in considerations of whether people are right or wrong in their statements. The important point is what is it right to do in the circumstances of today, without prejudice to disagreements about what may have occurred in the past. On that basis, I am very sympathetic to the association's case.
I compliment Mr. Delaney and his committee for the perseverance and passion they have applied to this humanitarian issue. They had the courage to hang in, despite the bureaucracy in the Departments of Finance and Justice, Equality and Law Reform which were fobbing them off. As Mr. Delaney has heard, there is cross-party support for the association on this issue. To move forward, I suggest that at the next committee meeting we finalise what we will say to officials of the Department of Finance.
Mr. Delaney
Deputies Burton and Catherine Murphy raised the question of repercussions. One would have to be as thick as the wall to say there might not be repercussions. The only repercussions there could be involve gardaí who retired prior to 1982, whom we do not represent, in that they may have a case with regard to rent allowance pensionabilty.
The other point raised by members concerned the number of cases which, according to the Department of Finance, is 107. The cost is €200,000 per year but the Department has failed to realise that the majority of the 107 cases, 65, are widows. The vast majority of our members are widowed and receiving €20 per week. I do not like to criticise the Department of Finance when its representatives are not present. I would have liked them to attend this meeting. We are trying to present a case and we do not intend to criticise anyone.
Although there is broad agreement, I seek a point of clarification. A letter was sent to me as Chairman of the committee on 25 April 2006 from the assistant secretary in the Department of Finance. The sum of €152 million was suggested as the possible cost. The letter states that the Commission on Public Service Pensions, as part of its deliberation, examined the specific issue of the pensionability of allowances. To me, this refers to all allowances rather than only rent allowance. The Department states that allowances in general have been examined but the specific issue of rent allowance has never been examined alone.
Mr. Delaney
The Commission on Public Service Pensions did not examine allowances for the Garda Síochána, the Army or prison officers. This gets our backs up.
The Department made a global statement on the pensionability of allowances but not on the specific allowance of Mr. Delaney's association.
Mr. Delaney
One must distinguish why we received rent allowance and what it is for. With the greatest respect, I suggest that the Chairman may be in receipt of an allowance in performing the function of chairman. Let us assume this contributes to his pension. Is it reasonable for a Deputy in the Chamber to demand the same allowance when he has never performed the function? Allowances are different and prison officers always received a rent allowance.
Mr. Delaney stated that there were 150 people involved at the beginning. Due to the passing of time and death, the figure is now approximately 100. Presumably the logic is that if it is granted to the 100 members it should also go to the estates of the 50 who are currently not with us. One could not deprive them because they died one day before this allowance was due to be granted. What is your position on that?
Mr. Delaney
My father and mother passed away and my father had been in the Prison Service. This type of transfer is not possible under the Public Service Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. When I die, my pension dies with me. We would dearly love if that were not the case.
I had to ask that question. Deputy Burton made a proposal and the committee will obtain a number of necessary facts from the Department of Finance. At its next meeting the committee will agree a position and approach the Minister. On behalf of the committee I thank the association for making its case and appreciate that some of its members have travelled a considerable distance. We will keep the association informed as to what we will do.
Do we now have provisional agreement?
Yes.
I thought the Chairman would enjoy that.
Speed is of the essence and we should set a deadline for this matter.
The joint committee adjourned at 5.15 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 8 November 2006.