Examination of witnesses (Questions 144
- 159)
WEDNESDAY 17 JUNE 1998
MR MIKE
PEPPER, MR
WILLIAM SLOAN,
and MR PAT
MAGUIRE
Chairman
144. Mr Pepper, Mr Sloan, Mr Maguire, you
are most welcome. I apologise for the fact that we kept you waiting
a moment or two. It may well be that you would like to have the
opportunity of saying an introductory word, though we of course
have had the benefit of your memorandum. One or two ground rules
which you may have noticed from previous examinations we have
done: we will endeavour to make the order of our questions logical,
and therefore questions may come to you from different corners
of the room, it will not necessarily go totally in a pattern;
and, secondly, if at any stage after the event you wanted to gloss
in writing anything you had said, because you felt it needed further
explanation on reflection, then we would, of course, entirely
understand that. It may well be that there would be further things
you would want to say which you felt had not been fully covered,
and, equally, if there are questions which we, on reflection,
afterwards feel that we have not taken the advantage of asking
you then we might follow up with a question in writing as well;
but I think, otherwise, it is a reasonably straightforward process?
(Mr Pepper) Thank you very much, Chairman. First
of all, thank you for the invitation to attend this session of
the Select Committee, and we actually welcome the opportunity
to give evidence in addition to our written submission. Before
continuing, however, and on the point of the written submission,
there are a couple of drafting errors that I would like to clarify
and amend at this stage of the proceedings. The first is a typographical
error, on page 1, it is the third word, where it says: "Since
the onslaught", that should actually read "Since the
outset". The second error is at the bottom of the page, where
it refers to the transfer of the Deputy Governor of Maze; in actual
fact, that transfer took place in May 1997 and not July. And,
thirdly, on the second page, third line, where it says: "Following
the events in late 1997 and early 1998 eg tunnel discovery",
the tunnel discovery was, of course, March 1997, and the Averill
escape took place in December 1997; so, in actual fact, the tunnel
discovery is irrelevant to that particular paragraph. There are
one or two other typographical errors; but I think that covers
it.
145. Perhaps we can sort those out separately.
(Mr Pepper) Just as a word of explanation, in
terms of the Prison Governors Association itself, we are not a
very public organisation, as far as Northern Ireland is concerned,
and we are, in actual fact, members of the Prison Governors Association
which represents prison Governors in England, Wales, as well as
Northern Ireland. Of the 62 Governors currently in post in Northern
Ireland, we have 48 members there, which is about 77 per cent
of those who are eligible for membership. That is basically it,
Chairman, as far as an introduction goes.
146. Let me start. In your view, to what
extent has the Prison Governors Association been able to contribute
to the developing and development of policy in the Prison Service,
obviously in Northern Ireland?
(Mr Pepper) As far as development of policy is
concerned, policy tends to be handed down. The Governors Association,
as such, is not involved in the generation of policy; however,
our senior members would be involved in the generation of that,
through membership of the Senior Policy Group within Prison Service
headquarters, so that would mean that the Governors of each establishment
would be present at that Group. When it comes to the interpretation
of policy or clarification of policy on behalf of our members
then that is when we would come in, and we would make representations
to headquarters when we felt it necessary.
147. In terms of the contribution by senior
members, would that be the incidental consequence of dialogue
within the Association, or would they be acting in an individual
capacity?
(Mr Pepper) They would be acting in an individual
capacity as Governors of their own establishments, as part of
the Senior Policy Group, not as members of the Association in
any sense.
148. How does the Association feel about
operational policy as it is now developing? If happiness represents
less than total enthusiasm, what alternative strategy would you
be in favour of?
(Mr Pepper) As far as the operation of policy
is concerned, traditionally, unless there is something which is
going to have an impact on our members, or where we have genuine
concerns about the operational running of the Service, we tend
not to get involved in operational decisions, those are quite
properly, as far as we are concerned, matters for the senior management
of the Service. Having said that, there have been occasions in
the fairly recent past where we have commented to senior management,
expressing our grave concerns about how operational matters were
developing.
Chairman: I shall
probably come back hereafter. Mr Browne.
Mr Browne
149. Good afternoon, gentlemen; thank you
for your memorandum. A significant part of the memorandum is devoted
to the effects of Agency status, and it is to some degree of pity
that you have corrected the typographical error in the first sentence,
but what I am interested in is, have there been, in your view,
any benefits to the Service from Agency status?
(Mr Pepper) Yes, up to this point in time there
have been a small number of benefits. Certainly, in terms of the
public face of the Service, what has happened is that the Chief
Executive has been able to better explain the work of the Service
publicly, and, in fairness to him, he has been fairly proactive
in that role. In addition to that, from the point of view of our
day-to-day work, there is a greater awareness of the need for
financial controls, the accounting procedures have greatly improved
over what they were, Governors generally have a greater feel for
the financial consequences of the decisions they make, and, certainly
as far as written communications are concerned, between headquarters
and all individuals in the Service, those have also greatly improved.
That seems to be about as far as it has gone, as far as we are
concerned.
150. Whereas, according to your memorandum,
there are significant disadvantages form Agency status; is that
right?
(Mr Pepper) Rather than disadvantages, as such,
perhaps consequences have flowed from Agency status, which have
had a great impact on our members, in terms of the number of initiatives
that have been driven forward, just prior to and since Agency
status came about. The sort of initiatives that are running at
the moment and their consequences, there are things that we have
to face and there are things that we have to deal with, in addition
to the management of the prisons and prisoners; things like Investors
In People, NVQs, the Prison Service Review, sickness monitoring,
sentence planning, anti-bullying programmes, equal opportunities,
a new staff code of conduct, indiscipline, constant revision of
staff attendance systems, due to down-sizing, there is a range
of prior option studies ongoing, works departments, health care,
catering and escorting of prisoners, and, of course, there was
the timing of the closure of Belfast Prison, which had an impact.
151. And are all of these consequences of
a change to Agency status, or are some of them not developments
that would have taken place in any event?
(Mr Pepper) Some of them may have taken place
in any event; certainly things like the Prison Service Review
was a consequence of Agency status, the prior option studies certainly
seem to have been, although it could be argued that they were
part of the Next Steps programme anyway, but certainly they seem
to be a consequence of it. And the down-sizing, which is something
that is going to continue, it was happening before Belfast closed
but it has been happening all the way through, that does pose
difficulties for managers in the Service to ensure that the work
is adequately covered.
152. In your memorandum you say: "The
move to agency status we would suggest has led to a lowering of
morale amongst staff within the agency." Now, assuming that
that sentence does not contain any of the other typographical
errors, can you explain to the Committee why, in your view, Agency
status has affected staff morale?
(Mr Pepper) Certainly, as far as our members are
concerned, one of the things that has happened is that there has
been quite a reduction in the number of Governor grades in the
Service; obviously, a lot of that was consequential on the closure
of Belfast Prison, because quite a few Governors, I think it was
something like 18 Governors, were deployed at Belfast, and part
of the reduction has been subsumed in that. How long ago was it
that we had 107, was it five, six years ago; around 1995, 1996,
we had 107 Governors in the Service, we are now down to a total
of 68, and that has had an impact as far as our members are concerned
because they have had to pick up the threads of the experience
that we lost, we lost an awful lot of experience through people
taking all-grade redundancy packages. And that is one of the difficulties
with a voluntary package that you cannot dictate who actually
goes. So we lost a lot of people who had experience and there
were a lot of people left behind who had to pick up the threads
of the work that they had been doing. So, in terms of an impact
on our members, that certainly was the case. Again, because flowing
from Agency status we have now got the Prison Service Review,
and there is a reluctance, obviously, on the part of headquarters
to fill vacancies, particularly at the lower Governor levels.
And, in actual fact, at the moment we have nine Principal Officers
filling Governor Five posts on temporary promotion, and there
is no indication that any of these posts are going to be filled
on a permanent basis, and, in actual fact, we do not believe that
they will be, because of the recent Good Friday Agreement, for
example, and the consequences of that. As far as morale is concerned,
the `them and us' perceptions still remain, certainly between
the higher levels in the Prison Service headquarters and Governors
in the field; we do not feel we are being listened to. We try
to work as closely as we possibly can with headquarters on a number
of issues, and we give advice, where we feel it is appropriate
to give advice, and we find that very often that advice is ignored;
that has an impact. And whilst Governors generally are prepared
to make decisions and take responsibility for their actions, in
a lot of cases we are actually not empowered to do so, and that
has been a long-running thing, simply because of the situation
that has pertained in Northern Ireland over the past 25, 30 years.
153. If you will forgive me, obviously,
this is your business and you know it better than I do, but I
cannot help but think, as I listen to this catalogue of concerns
which you have, and I do not doubt that they are all justified,
but it not immediately obvious to me why any of them are associated
with Agency status, as opposed to running the Prison Service in
any other way. I am interested really in the expansion of the
changes that you say have led to a lowering of morale, as a result
of the change to Agency status, rather than as a consequence of
the impact of many other factors that have caused changes within
the Prison Service?
(Mr Pepper) We all expected, whenever Agency status
came about, that there would be a great change in the Service,
there would be delegation of responsibility to people, to enable
them to make routine, day-to-day decisions. That did not happen,
there has been no great impact on the Service, other than the
points that I raised earlier, which were the improvement of the
public face, if you like, and the greater awareness of financial
accounting procedures, but there is no major change in terms of
how we did our work, and we had great expectations but nothing
seemed to come of it at all.
154. Yes, but can I try to pin you down
just to one example. If we can go back to your memorandum and
move to the next paragraph, you say, in the first sentence there,
in fact it is a one-sentence paragraph: "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." It seems to me clear that
if there is a perception that senior management does not have
enough time for the coal-face workers then that is going to affect
morale. But are you saying that that changed with the onset of
Agency status, before Agency are you saying it was different,
and, if so, how was it different?
(Mr Maguire) We had obviously different personalities
in place, looking back even sort of eight, nine, ten years ago,
and you did tend to see those people having more personal contact
with staff in establishments, and what we are saying is it is
our perception that, since Agency, our expectations were structured,
as many staff were, and we thought we would be having a more unified
Service. Perhaps we should have been more aware of what actually
Agency status was going to be, but certainly Agency status for
us was going to be a coming together of everyone, so that the
culture of `them and us' was going to be dissipated. That has
not happened, and, for whatever reason, we perceive that now as
having been made worse. It is very difficult to say, if we were
not an Agency, how things would have been; all we can say is that
the perception, since we have become an Agency, is that there
has been a lowering of morale and there has been perceptibly a
widening of the `them and us' culture.
155. I do not doubt that your observations
are correct, I have no way of measuring that from my perspective
at the moment, but what I am keen to try to find out from you
is, are these things which have happened which are coincidental,
that is, that other factors operating on the Service have caused
a lowering of morale, but at the same time as there has been a
change to Agency status, or is one consequential on the other,
has the lowering of morale been a consequence of the change to
Agency status? And I am certainly not clear from your memorandum,
and, I have to say, nor from your answers, that the one is consequential
on the other, but that seems to be what you are saying in your
memorandum?
(Mr Pepper) Certainly, in terms of lowering of
morale in the Service, I do remember a time, many, many years
ago, in the Service, when morale was extremely high amongst staff.
For whatever reason, various decisions were taken which were outside
the control of the Service and outside the control of individuals
within the Service, and that did have an impact. Things have not
improved, in fact things have got much worse since then, and,
in fact, you could nearly argue that it has been a long-running
sore within the Service that morale has gradually gone down and
down, it is the sort of thing that has peaks and troughs, but
certainly the impression that we have, and certainly the impression
of staff that we would talk to, is that morale is nowhere near
as good as it was, say, ten, 15 years ago. But we feel that staff
do not feel empowered to do their job, which seems to be the main
thing, particularly as far as Maze is concerned. To say one is
consequential on the other, it is difficult for me to actually
form a judgement on that; it could well be coincidental, but what
I am saying is, that is our perception, that things certainly
have not got any better under Agency status.
156. The rest of your memorandum goes on,
in the next again paragraph, to express the view that the move
to Agency status has been a missed opportunity for the Northern
Ireland Prison Service, and then it goes on to record the offer
made by your Chairman to the Chief Executive of partnership. Would
you like to expand upon that, please, and explain to us what exactly
that missed opportunity was?
(Mr Sloan) At the time, the President of the Prison
Governors Association in London, Chris Scott, came over and spoke
with Alan Shannon, the Chief Executive, and others, and what he
was offering them was a partnership where we could work together.
Obviously, at that particular time, there were certain issues
that this Association were not happy with, and what we were looking
for was a solution to those particular issues. The issues that
were involved at the time were obviously the reduction in the
number of Governor grades in the Northern Ireland Prison Service,
there was also controversy over the appointment of the Director
of Operations at the time, and there were also continuing, ongoing
negotiations with them over pay and other related matters. And
what the President at that particular time wanted to offer was
a partnership where, from a national level, the Prison Governors
Association, along with the Chief Executive and his Directors,
could work together in a strategic plan for the good and for the
betterment of the Service in Northern Ireland. That offer was
not taken up, and, indeed, we did write to the Chief Executive
and asked him at the time could we have a meeting with the Prisons
Minister so that we could discuss the issues further; again, that
offer was refused, the Prison Minister's office writing back to
us and saying that, as far as they were concerned, the issues
that we did raise with the Minister, in our letter, were for the
local management of the Prison Service, namely the Chief Executive
and his Directors, to sort out along with us. And what I can say,
from that particular time, we have had recently two meetings with
the current Prisons Minister and we have found that to be very
productive.
157. Have you had the meetings that you
are talking about since this memorandum was written?
(Mr Sloan) Yes; that is correct.
158. So are you suggesting to the Committee
that an opportunity to take advantage of this opportunity might
arise from these meetings?
(Mr Sloan) Yes. I think there has been a change
of direction, and we, as the Prison Governors Association in Northern
Ireland, have welcomed the time given to us by the Prisons Minister
on those two occasions and look forward to entering into more
conversation and dialogue with him as the events of the Prison
Service unfold further this year.
159. Can I go on to another part? I do not
want to just constantly be picking up sentences out of your memorandum,
but some of them need further explanation. The first sentence
on page 3 expresses a concern that the drive to cut costs with
regard to cost per prisoner is, in practice, an aim and objective
of the Northern Ireland Prison Service. Some people might read
that and think that a drive to cut costs per prisoner is a reasonable
objective for a business: why should that concern you?
(Mr Pepper) The primary concern, frankly, we are
concerned as anyone else about the cost of the Prison Service,
we recognise that our cost per prisoner place is much, much higher
than it should be, indeed, as compared with England and Wales,
but, having said that, there have been historical and other sound
reasons why our cost per prisoner place is that high; we can go
into details on that, if you wish.
|
