House of Commons - Northern Ireland Affairs

Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs Minutes of Evidence

Memorandum from The Prison Governors Association (Northern Ireland Branch)

Since the outset of Agency Status in 1995 there has been no evidence of succession planning/individual formal training plans/career development/internal transfer procedures for Governor Grades within the Service. This has been highlighted by the definite lack of a suitable candidate to be appointed to the Governor One post at HMP Maze. The previous Governor One of Maze retired in October 1997 and against the advice of this association the Chief Executive advised us that a headquarters decision was made, whereby the Director of Operations and the role of Governing Governor of the Maze prison were to be combined. We were informed at the time that the two functions could be carried out on a part-time basis.

We expressed our gravest reservation that the most important and difficult penal establishment in Western Europe was now to have a part-time Governor. We also gave the Chief Executive a range of fair and reasonable options on how to tackle the vacant post at Maze, which included going to a trawl for the post on a UK wide basis. Belatedly this option was the eventual road that the Chief Executive when down following the recognition that one man could not possibly carry out both functions.

Another point worth noting in relation to Maze at this time was that the Deputy Governor at Maze was transferred in May1 of 1997 and was not replaced until October 1997.

We are concerned at the short sightedness and short termism of sector management in the Prison Service Agency in allowing this particular situation to develop. Following the events in late 1997 and early 1998, e.g., Averill1 escape, the Governor One incumbent stated that the two jobs could not be properly carried out by one individual.

Due to the lack of a structured transfer policy/career planning and development policy for Governor Grades within the service, we had continually expressed our concerns to Senior Management. We highlighted the fact that stress was becoming an issue in the Maze prison, exacerbated by a lack of movement into and out of the Maze prison, which was adversely affecting the health and well being of our membership. The head of personnel assured us that there was no evidence of any stress in Governor Grades at Maze. Shortly after this meeting we as an association were faced with five of our members being absent through stress related illnesses and the unfortunate death of one of our members through a stress related illness.

It is worth pointing out that all these Governor Grades worked in residential areas of the Maze prison. Belatedly transfers were forthcoming following a further meeting between ourselves the Chief Executive and the Director of Personnel.

In Mid 1997 we were informed by the Director of Personnel that in order to obtain a pay rise for the year 1997-98 we would have to lose five Governor posts in establishments, in order to fund our pay rise. When we object in the strongest possible terms to this plan we were informed that our pay rise could now be funded by the loss of three Governor posts at Headquarters. When we refused to accept this we were then told our pay rise could be funded by loosing one Governor grade post at HQ. There appears to be no recognition of the Operational requirements of the service with regard to Governor Grade posts, merely cutting jobs for the sake of cutting costs (and this from the head of personnel).

EFFECTS OF AGENCY STATUS

We are concerned that the drive to cut costs with regard to cost per prisoner is in practice an aim and objective of the NIPS. We have seen a curtailment in out-of-cell activity for inmates in our establishments due to two factors:

(1) the high level of staff sick;

(2) the staff attendance systems not meeting the operational requirements of the Service. We would point out that the frequency of establishments working on or below safe staffing levels is increasing. This is not conducive to the aims and objectives of the NIPS and indeed to a safe working environment.

We would express our reservations that agency status has not resulted in a unified service, the "them and us" culture still remains with very little HQ impetus to change the situation.

The size of Prison Service Headquarters is also a matter of concern which was highlighted by HM Inspectorate prison report on Maghaberry prison dated 1997.

The move to agency status we would suggest has led to a lowering of morale amongst staff within the agency. This lowering of morale is likely to increase with the ever present threat of the Prison Service Review which staff perceive to be yet another cost cutting exercise which does not have the true interest of the service at heart.

Another concern under Agency status is the perceived lack of Senior HQ management taking time to visit and making themselves available to staff who work within establishments.

There is a clear lack of visible leadership from the top of the organisation.

In our view the move to agency status has been a missed opportunity for the NIPS. Our national chairman Chris Scott made an offer of partnership to the Chief Executive, an offer which to date has not been taken up. We would point out that the same offer was made by Chris Scott to the Home Secretary Jack Straw and was warmly embraced. We only have the best interest of the NIPS at heart but our comments, recommendations and offer of assistance continually fall on deaf ears.

STRUCTURE OF THE SERVICE

The Prison Service Review is advocating a move towards flatter management structures, full devolution of budgets and enhanced role and responsibilities for all members of the NIPS. Whilst we are supportive of the main objectives of the review we have a number of concerns which we have made known to the Chief Executive, see Annex below.

The re-structuring model that we appear to be following is basically similar to the Scottish Service. Some of our members have visited the Scottish Service and these members express concern over the way in which the changes have manifested themselves. The differential pay bands, the removal of titles and the overall perception that the prime motivator is once again cutting costs has led to a lowering of morale and a service wide apathy.

We have expressed our views to the Chief Executive on the matter of the review and we await the outcome.

In our view the current structure is hampered by too many non prison services grades taking operational decisions which do not stem from a basic understanding of coal face issues. This could be redressed by more senior posts being opened up to senior Governor grades. (We would point out that the current Director General of the English Prison Service Richard Tilt is an ex Governing Governor). Only one of our current senior directors' has a prison service background and his experience is purely of the English system.

SET AIMS-OBJECTIVES-TARGETS

As an association we fully subscribe to the current aims and objectives of the service however the constant drive to cut costs is in our view a hindrance to attaining the said aims and objectives.

CONCLUSION

The NI Prison Governors' are a professional association totally dedicated to the aims and objectives of the NIPS and we recognise and embrace the role we play within the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland.

We share the concerns of the wider community of recent tragic events with our prison system and we are justifiably proud of the courageous work and initiatives that our membership have displayed in their daily work.

Whilst we recognise that the NIPS has a pivotal role to play within the overall search for a lasting peace settlement in NI; it would be our perception that the regime of the Maze prison now bears no resemblance to how any normal prison should operate within existing prison rules and regulations.