Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

It is a short Bill. While much more voluminous legislation has come before us, the Bill will make quite an impact due to the changes contained therein. The three issues, which have been outlined by the Minister and supported by Senator Cummins, will have a considerable impact on the operation of prison services.

The appointment of contractors, which has been discussed here previously, is a good idea. While the Minister has said he does not intend using this provision in the short term, nonetheless it should be in the Bill. In that regard, I note that it was prompted because of difficulties within the Prison Service.

I would take a different view from Senator Cummins. Within the public services there is an adherence to bad practice, which is often supported by the unions and which is totally at variance with what has happened in the private sector. Unions in the private sector, because of high unemployment and all that occurred during the 1970s and 1980s, in particular, saw that it was only through partnership, working together with companies, that they could ensure the long-term well-being, employment security and improvements in conditions and wages of their own members. Unfortunately, that has been slow in coming to the public service. As a consequence there are headline areas of bad practice. In fact, it is fairly endemic in the public service.

The Prison Service was one of those areas and I compliment the Minister on taking it on. It is not easy. Obviously the nature of politics is that the Minister has the Opposition criticising him for the fact that there is a problem when he is doing his best to ensure that future practice is founded on a more realistic and sensible basis than was the case in the past.

Undoubtedly the Prison Service had many such difficulties. In fairness to prison officers, who may have been sheltered because of this and may have been beneficiaries of bad practice, it takes a little courage and enlightenment on their part to recognise that and I welcome their support of the changes through the ballot, by two to one. In many ways, it is an example of what can be done in other sectors within the public sector.

The prison custody officers provision is a good innovation. I note that the Bill includes a provision that certification by the Minister is essential in order to engage people by contractors, who are authorised to do this work. That is a reasonable and prudent precaution. I am not convinced an applicant who is refused would take the appeal course through the courts as that might be too cumbersome. Will the Minister consider the possibility of an appeals officer rather than involve the courts? The courts trundle on and they are just as typical of outdated or bad practice. They need improvement and the removal of any extra workload from them is a step in the right direction.

The Minister intends that the functions would be in accord with those of prison officers, which makes sense. The person must be capable of performing the duties, undergo training and be a fit person. It is proper that he has built into the legislation a system whereby an officer will be appointed to monitor the contracting arrangements and how they function and to report annually to the Minister in this regard. The purpose of this is to make the system more cost effective. I hope the new procedures within the Prison Service will obviate the need to use this provision, but if it is more cost effective, it should be used.

It is good to see excessive levels of overtime removed and rationalisation of stores and maintenance arrangements. This is worthwhile and will achieve a saving of €25 million. The elimination of static posts through the use of technology which will allow the redeployment of staff is also welcome. In this regard, it is regrettable that recently our general practitioners, who are extremely well rewarded for spending in some cases just a matter of minutes with patients, obstructed the introduction of the new general practitioner-only medical cards. When the issue was resolved, the IMPACT trade union suggested that because of the increased workload the change involved, it should enter the fray to extract further moneys from taxpayers for its subscribers. That shows a level of detachment from the real world.

This economy would never have progressed were that type of mentality predominant. That attitude was with us in the private sector in the 1960s and 1970s, but it evaporated because people saw it was counterproductive. The same modern thinking must be introduced into the public service. It is extraordinary that after 16 or 17 years of partnership this has not happened. If it is not provided for in the next partnership arrangement, we should not enter into such an agreement. We must modernise public services and they must be productive. The provision of a computer or extra equipment is no reason for extra payment for public service workers. That does not happen in the private sector nor in any competitive economy.