Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 165: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform further to Parliamentary Question No. 151 of 24 February 2005, if he followed the procedures as specified in the 1877 Act, or rule 82(1) Rules for the Government of Prisons 1947 or the Civil Service Regulation Act 1956 when he terminated the employment of the person in question; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9004/07]

Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 166: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he or his Department will be issuing correspondence (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9005/07]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 165 and 166 together.

The person in question was for some years a prison chaplain on the nomination of his local Bishop. Subsequent to his taking up the appointment he initiated a large number of claims with different statutory bodies regarding his pay, grading and status as a prison chaplain and other terms and conditions attaching to such appointments including tenure in the post.

Prison chaplains are engaged only on the basis of a nomination by the Bishop and, because of the special relationship between a priest and his Bishop, have never been regarded by the Irish Prison Service as having the status of a typical employee. A number of the complaints made by the person in question derive from his view that no account whatever should be taken of the unique relationship a chaplain has with his church authorities.

As regards the termination of his contract, I am informed by the Prison Service that this was fully in accordance with the terms of his contract. He was employed on the nomination of his bishop and his employment terminated when his bishop withdrew that nomination in August, 2005. This was set out in the new contract of employment for full-time Catholic Chaplins which he signed as recently as 13 June, 2005. Although he has consistently disputed this involvement in his assignment to the post by his nominating bishop, his appointment was expressly stated to be dependent on his continuing nomination by that bishop. He was paid four weeks in lieu of notice and, consequently, his last day of service was 30 September, 2005.

The complexities of the relationship between the Prison Service and prison chaplains and their unique status vis-À-vis their nominating Bishops was referred to by the Data Protection Commissioner. In his ruling the Commissioner accepted that in regard to personal data disclosure to the church authorities in this particular instance there had been an unintentional breach of the data protection legislation by the Prison Service and that the Service "had found itself in a difficult position because of the unusual employment arrangements for chaplains". The Data Protection Commissioner accepted that the Prison Service, as far back as January, 2005, had taken steps to ensure there would be no repetition of this unintentional breach and that they regretted any distress caused in that regard.