Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 11: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his proposals for the privatisation of prisoner escorts; if he has satisfied himself that such important work can be entrusted to the private security sector; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16145/05]

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy will be aware that the recently published Prisons Bill 2005 contains provisions which will enable the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to enter into an agreement with another party for the provision of prisoner escort services. This legislation will be enacted without delay.

Arrangements to invite tenders for the outsourcing of this service will proceed in parallel. This has already begun with the publication in the EU Journal of a preliminary indicative notice, PIN, so that the time needed to complete the tendering process can be minimised. I expect that a contract following this process will be signed by the end of September. This will have a major impact on overtime expenditure in the prison service given that approximately 30% of all overtime earnings is attributable to prisoner escorts.

The unpredictability of escorts leads to a considerable degree of disruption in the day-to-day running of prisons and the routine of inmates and causes considerable difficulties for prison management in operational planning. In the current context of the absence of an agreement on the change needed for a more efficient prison service, the utilisation of highly trained staff resources by both the Garda Síochána and the Irish Prison Service in the provision of a non-core activity warrants review. I have no doubt that elements in the private security industry would be better placed to provide this service in an efficient and effective manner.

The provision of prisoner escorts by the private sector has been a feature of the criminal justice system in neighbouring jurisdictions for some time. The engagement of dedicated prisoner escort providers utilising the appropriate cellular vehicles has allowed the prison authorities in those jurisdictions to focus on their core activities, namely, the safe and secure detention of offenders with a focus on returning these individuals to society in better shape than when they first encountered the criminal justice system.

My decision to proceed with the contracting out of prisoner escorts should also be seen in the context of increasing regulation of the private security industry, particularly the licensing requirements contained in the Private Security Services Act 2004 and the creation of a private security authority.

The background to my decision to proceed with the contracting out of prisoner escorts is well known.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

It has long been recognised that the huge level of expenditure on overtime in the prison service is not sustainable and must be reduced. Unfortunately, when Deputy Costello's party was last in Government, it did nothing to tackle the problem which diverts much needed funds from important projects such as prisoner rehabilitation programmes and an accelerated prisons building programme.

Since I took office in 2002, I have allowed ample space and time for a mutually acceptable negotiated settlement to be reached between the Irish Prison Service and the Prison Officers Association. Following the rejection of the earlier offer in October 2003, I 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 and involved long and difficult negotiations leading to a substantial arbitration award recommendation. The deal included an 8% pensionable arbitration allowance and the payment of a lump sum of €13,750. Unfortunately, the members of the Prison Officers Association did not follow the recommendation of their own executive and decided to reject the proposal for organisational change in the prison service.

While I understand that the Prison Officers Association believes that the proposal for organisational change can be tweaked on a cost neutral basis, it needs to be clearly understood that no Minister can be in the business of renegotiating a proposal which has already been arbitrated on by the Civil Service Arbitration Board. As the Deputy knows, the arbitration process is the end of the line. I cannot compromise the integrity of the industrial relations process which has served us so well and must continue to serve our public services into the future. I have already made it clear in the House that I will consider any detailed proposals which the POA may wish to put forward in writing which are not incompatible with the issues already considered by the arbitrator.

In the meantime, I intend to proceed apace with the agenda already approved by Government to ensure that the prison service is run as efficiently and cost effectively as possible. That agenda, which includes the contracting out of prisoner escorts, is now in place and, as I have already indicated, steps to implement it are already under way.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Minister agree that the background to the Bill — the proposals to outsource prison escorts and provide prisoner escort services on a private basis — has been marked by his ongoing conflict with prison officers about the issue of overtime? The Minister has contemplated the legislation on that basis alone. He has closed three prisons and a further two prisons are about to be closed. The Minister has adopted a gung-ho approach to industrial relations, for example by telling prison officers that they cannot beat City Hall and deciding not to attend their conference. The staff of the places of detention at Spike Island and the Curragh protested outside the Dáil today against the Minister's approach. Some of them were joined by members of their families, who are aggrieved about the manner in which children will be torn from their parents, who will have to work in other parts of the country such as Portlaoise and Cork. The Minister plans to move them to various parts of Dublin in the future.

The Minister said that the Exchequer faces substantial costs because "approximately 30% of all overtime earnings is attributable to prisoner escorts". Has the Minister received an estimate of the cost of his proposals? Will he give such figures now? Does he agree that he should sit down with prison staff during the current window of opportunity? There is no difference between the positions of the two sides on the savings that would accrue from the reduction in the annual number of hours. Prison officers do not agree that 10% of those hours should be worked by all the officers. Many officers with young families do not want to work overtime, but their colleagues are willing to do so. I ask the Minister to address that issue as a means of making progress, rather than privatising a part of the Prison Service.

Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have been careful when making public statements about this problem, which needs to be resolved. Having spoken to many prison officers, formally and informally, I firmly believe that the difficulties can be resolved in the current climate of resolution. During such discussions, I have made it clear that any resolution should be reached within the financial envelope that has been offered by the Minister. The officers have accepted that the financial envelope should not be exceeded. In that context, does the Minister agree that he and his staff should engage in discussions with the Prison Officers Association, especially as the current mood favours the resolution of this dispute? The association is preparing a document, the contents of which will be within the parameters I have mentioned, to be submitted in the next couple of days. Given that many problems could arise if this dispute gets worse, does the Minister agree that he should avail of the current opportunity, within the parameters in question?

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not want to discuss this matter in public in a way that would do more harm than good.

Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Good.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have been very committed to this process and I have shown great patience. If the Deputies knew exactly what I have done and what I have forborne from doing to bring about an agreed conclusion to this process, they would be surprised.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I invite the Minister to surprise us.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not in the business of renegotiating a deal that was reached through the public service arbitrator. If I were to do so, I would be setting a horrific precedent. It was clear during the frank discussion I had with the prison officers' executive, which was friendly on a personal level, that the position is as I have outlined. If the prison officers want me to consider a particular proposition that they consider to be fully faithful to the arbitrated settlement, in effect, I will do so. I would be happy to consider a proposition that improves the settlement, without doing violence to it.

Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is fair enough.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not intend to re-enter negotiations with prison officers. There will be no more discussions. If they wish to make a proposal, they can put it to me in writing and I will decide whether to accept it. I expect any proposal that is made by prison officers to command acceptance among them. I will not negotiate with them for a third time.

The measures I am taking are proceeding. I assure every prison officer that I am pursuing a certain course of action. The officers were told by their executive that I would proceed with that course of action if they rejected the settlement. If prison officers want to call this process to a halt by producing a proposal that does not do violence to the arbitrated settlement and does not involve an increase in expenditure, I will consider such a proposal. I will accept such an agreement if I agree with prison officers that it represents an improvement on the existing settlement. That is as fair as I can be without destroying the State's industrial relations machinery.