Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs Written Evidence


Written evidence from the Prison Officers' Association (Northern Ireland)

  We write in response to the forthcoming inquiry by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee into the operation of the Northern Ireland Prison Service.

  It has always been the view of the Prison Officers' Association (N.I.) that the existing estate is adequate to deal with the prisoner population in Northern Ireland. The crisis which has arisen recently in terms of overcrowding is a result of previous management teams at Prison Service headquarters not following through decisions which needed to be implemented as far back as 2002, to deal with a rise in the prisoner population to 1500. Rather, these decisions were postponed and this has led to the crisis which we are now are facing. Prison Service management would prefer to build a new Prison on a green field site which, in our opinion, is a waste of taxpayers' money as the existing Prisons at HMP's Maghaberry and Magilligan could be developed by providing new accommodation within these establishments. Particular attention should be paid to developing accommodation which is less staff intensive, thereby cutting down on staff costs. We can elaborate more fully when we speak to the Committee.

  In relation to health, education and training needs, this is a subject which we can respond to when we speak to the Committee.

FOREWORD

  The proposals which I have put together in this document will not produce the efficiencies demanded by management and HM Treasury in the short term. I have had to take a long term view owing to the structure of our present staffing situation. However, these proposals could, if management decide, have a major impact on the Cost Per Prisoner Place (CPPP) in the short term. In putting together this document I have had many misgivings but I have had to set these aside and consider the future of the Prison Service and the membership and take into account that to do nothing was not an option bearing in mind the government's drive to cut public expenditure.

  I am conscious of the fact that the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) must move with the times and we cannot bury our heads in the sand and hope that the drive to reduce public expenditure will not touch the NIPS. Each year we make a submission to the Pay Review Body (PRB) to justify a pay increase and each year it becomes increasingly difficult. We need to change our approach. I have no doubt that there are amongst us those who will accuse me of all sorts of things, as they did with the Way Forward and the Framework Agreement, but how many would go back to those conditions when staff earned their pay by working long hours with no time off? No one in the NIPS at the moment has anything to lose by these proposals. In fact, if these proposals were adopted, the working environment would be enhanced and we would get away from the culture of overtime working which has crept back into the NIPS when we thought it had been designated to the bin years ago.

  These proposals need much negotiation and "fine tuning" but I am convinced that it can be done and it will produce a better future for us all. I do not believe we should be looking over our shoulders to other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom to shape our Service here in Northern Ireland. Our future is in our own hands. Let's move on and do it.

  I recommend these proposals to you.

  This document is intended to address the crisis which the NIPS finds itself in owing to the lack of leadership demonstrated by the management of the Service from May 2002 to November 2004. During this period management spent their time and energy blaming the POA for all that was wrong with the Service, instead of showing initiative and commitment to the job which they were being paid to do out of the public purse. In all of their submissions to the PRB, and to anyone who would listen, management said that the reason for the CPPP being so high in Northern Ireland was because of the years of the Troubles which led to high salaries for Prison Officers compared to other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom This has always been management's excuse for it's incompetence. Anyone of us who has been around the NIPS for many years knows this is not the case. They seem to forget that it was the initiative of the POA which brought about change in relation to our working conditions over the years. As a result of these initiatives the take-home pay of staff has been reduced due to the reduction in the hours which our members have to work and the loss of many of our allowances. Whilst this has been the case I acknowledge that our working patterns have become more predictable and the pensions of our members have increased and, furthermore, I am confident that many of our members would not wish to return to those conditions pre 1989.

  Whilst these initiatives have brought many benefits to our members and the Prison Service, the failure of management to manage and their continual abuse of these agreements has led to conflict between management and the POA. We have had many instances of this ever since we agreed the pay deal in 2001/03. We had no sooner made this agreement when Prison Service management failed to live up to what they agreed and they set out to destroy the POA and the aspirations of our members. This set in motion the worst period of industrial relations which I have witnessed in my career in the NIPS. We were being led by a management team which had lost touch with the staff they were responsible for. No matter what the POA said, we were ignored. There are still Governors around who were part of that management team and who stood back and let the Prison Service slip into chaos, but it appears that they had their own agenda.

  I will give you examples of what took place in the past. At a meeting with the Secretary of State, Paul Murphy, I made the case that the replacement for the departing Director of Operations should come from within the NIPS and, to do this, there was no need to promote any other Governors to allow this to happen. This would go towards reducing the CPPP. The Director of Operations was then selected from within the NIPS, but what followed? Lots of promotions for Governors which was unnecessary.

  The POA was totally opposed to the closure of Mourne House. Our view was that Mourne House was the only female Prison in Northern Ireland and the only problems which this unit suffered from were due to lack of efficient management. All that was needed was for management to take an interest in the management of female prisoners and to assist them in this process the local POA Committee put forward proposals which would have saved £1.3 million in terms of staff costs. Again, this suggestion was ignored and it is our view that the decision to close Mourne House was an attempt to cover up the incompetence of management in relation to this unit. No thought was given by headquarters to the amount of tax payers' money which was spent to make Hydebank Wood suitable for female prisoners. The POA has since asked how much money was spent on the accommodation for female prisoners at Hydebank Wood. Headquarters has been "unable" to furnish us with this figure. All the reports which have been written criticising the management of female prisoners have since totally vindicated the views expressed by the POA.

  The POA has made many constructive suggestions to management as to how to address the CPPP issue and also how we could produce the additional 161 staff which we needed to deal with separation which was imposed on us in February 2004. The POA suggested the recruitment of Night Patrol Officers (NPO's) and Prisoner Custody Officers (PCO's) to release Prison Officers from night duty and to release Officers from the Prisoner Escort Group, so that they could be redeployed to assist with separation. It has taken management two years to recruit NPO's, now called Night Custody Officers. Salaries were agreed in April 2004 for PCO's, advertisements were placed in local newspapers and candidates were interviewed and selected but never appointed. Had management proceeded to recruit these people as agreed the amount of overtime which has been paid out since would have been saved and the resources would have been in place to allow us to provide a proper regime to prisoners. What happened? They gave the jobs to a private security firm yet, in the opinion of the POA, it would have proved more cost effective to adopt our proposals. Management further compounded their arrogance and incompetence by informing the PRB about their plans to introduce a three tier Officer system to the NIPS but the POA were reluctant to participate! What they forgot to tell the PRB was that they took the POA's proposals and claimed that it was their initiative!

  Healthcare is a major issue at the moment and this is another example of the incompetence of management in relation to healthcare within the Service. Ten years ago a review of healthcare was carried out and a skill mix in terms of staffing needed to deliver healthcare services was agreed. Since this agreement the provision of healthcare has deteriorated, not because of any lack of commitment by the staff, but because management once again has failed to live up to the agreement. The morale of staff in the healthcare unit has been demoralised by the actions of senior management responsible for healthcare, some of whom have spent the past ten years making uncomplimentary comments about the commitment and qualifications of our Healthcare Officers. They have reduced them to carrying out the most mundane tasks within the healthcare system. Prison Service management has known for some time who is responsible for the declining morale but they were not prepared to do anything about it. Their answer to the problem is to let someone else take responsibility for healthcare delivery within the NIPS, hence the decision to transfer responsibility for healthcare to the Trusts.

  It is my opinion that this decision is not in the interests of the tax payer and it will take more money to deliver healthcare in the future as the Trusts are already under financial pressure. This decision to transfer responsibility will only add to their problems. Healthcare could have been delivered more cost effectively by the Prison Service if it had been managed more professionally and responsibly retained by the Prison Service. This is another Mourne House situation. All it takes is for management to take charge of the job which they are paid to do. Instead they use tax payers' money to cover up their incompetence whilst at the same time they continue to reduce the standard of living of our members and deny us the resources to do our job.

  As you all know our terms and conditions are governed by the Framework Agreement. This Agreement has given us more clarity in what is expected of us by management and how we expect to be treated by management. Some members of management complain constantly that our present difficulties are due to the constraints placed on them by the Framework Agreement. My answer to this is that the Agreement was fully negotiated with headquarters and agreed upon so there is no point in complaining about it now. I believe there is nothing wrong with the Framework Agreement. The problems lie with their inability to manage.

  The Agreement gave responsibility to managers to manage and set up group working but look what has happened. AVH is used to run the NIPS yet this was never the intention or the purpose of AVH and it has been allowed to accumulate. Group Working has practically disappeared and the majority of managers are working a five day week. There is no supervisory support for staff at the weekend. Senior Officers have assumed the role of group manager in some cases, thereby reducing the time they have to supervise and support their staff. All these developments have been supported by senior management, therefore they must take responsibility for what has happened. It is certainly not the fault of the POA if management are unable to manage.

  The POA put proposals to Prison Service management in March 2005 in relation to prisoner escorting. There has been no response to date on these proposals. Our members have served the public with distinction over the past 36 years and we have made a tremendous sacrifice in the process. We all hoped the IRA ceasefire and the Good Friday Agreement would lead us into a new era in terms of serving within the NIPS. Since the Good Friday Agreement our members have not had the benefits which the rest of the public have enjoyed, although I would acknowledge that the attacks on our members have diminished although we still have groups who target our staff from time to time. Our colleagues within the NIPS have done a difficult job over the years and continue to do so. However, we must leave the past behind us and move on and to do so we have to shape a Prison Service for the future which we will all be proud to serve in, a Service which is built upon trust between management and staff. To build this future we must acknowledge that resources are scarce and we must be bold enough to break out of they way we have done things in the past if we wish to prosper in the future.

  Whilst I have been critical of management I would be less than honest with you and myself if I did not acknowledge that, at times, the POA has not been entirely blameless for some of the awkward situations which we have found ourselves in. I have put together these proposals in an attempt to build a better future for us all. In building that future, management need to understand that the job of a Prison Officer is a difficult one and we work daily in a hostile environment. The major problems which staff face are decisions made by managers who are far removed from the constant contact which staff have with the prisoner population. If we are going to establish a more positive outlook then management at all levels must change their attitude and ensure that staff are properly trained and resourced to do their job. The practice of dropping staffing levels must cease as this practice puts pressure on Prison Officers which in turn lead to high levels of absenteeism. Management should realise that, for Prison Officers to do their job effectively, they have to work as a team. When someone decides to reduce that team without consultation, contrary to agreements, then it opens up the possibility for conflict.

CHIEF OFFICER

  These proposals contain a recommendation to bring back the rank of Chief Officer for the following reasons:

  Since the management restructuring which removed the rank of Chief Officer, it has become apparent that discipline and respect has vanished from the Service. The uniformed section of our Service has been left with no link between themselves and the senior management of the Service. Grievances which staff have are being ignored which in turn leads to frustration and resentment. The uniformed rank of Chief Officer is essential to maintain discipline. This person could deal with a lot of issues that are not dealt with at the moment. This rank would report directly to the Governor and would therefore be acting at all times with the authority of the Governor and could deal with matters before they became a major issue. In effect, the rank of Chief Officer would be responsible to the Governor, in conjunction with the Personnel Manager, for all staffing issues. The position of Personnel Manager should be filled by a properly qualified Human Resources person.

GOVERNOR 3

  The management structure has also dropped the rank of Governor 3. This is a rank which I could never understand what role it played in the management of the Prison Service, other thank to give individuals a higher salary for doing a job which could be done by a Governor 4.

  In proposing to drop this position, it is my belief that Governor grades should have parity of pay with their colleagues in the GB Service, therefore like all other grades Governors need to contribute to the CPPP reduction which is necessary to achieve their ambitions.

GOVERNOR 5

  You will notice that the management structure proposed in this document has no Governor 5 rank. It is my opinion that, if these proposals were adopted, the role of Principal Officer would be enhanced thereby creating an overlap between Governor 5 and Principal Officer. We are aware that at the moment there is an overlap in terms of duties in relation to these two grades. The proposed accelerated promotion scheme is another system which has been tried in other Prison Services and has failed, but no one will admit it.

  I have been reliably informed that, in the GB Service, the majority of staff use the opportunity of the accelerated promotion scheme to reach the rank of Principal Officer and then decide to remain at that rank which defeats the intention of the accelerated promotion scheme to provide managers for the future. The proposal to enhance the role of Principal Officer will, in my opinion, provide the manager of the future and this will give the incentive for others to seek promotion.

RESTRUCTURED GRADES

  Governor 1

  Governor 2

  Governor 4

  Chief Officer

  Principal Officer

  Senior Officer

  Main Grade Officer

  Officer Support Grade 1—Supervisor

  Officer Support Grade 1

  Officer Support Grade 2—Supervisor

  Officer Support Grade 2

  Officer Support Grade 3 And 4—Supervisor

  Officer Support Grade 3

  Officer Support Grade 4

MAIN GRADE OFFICER PRE 2003

  Conditions of service:

  39 hour week

  Weekend on/off

  Salary £33,315

  Duties—supervision of inmates on landings, workshops and prisoner programmes, Security Field Officer.

  In the event of staff in this group begin returned to work from sick leave on a limited fitness programme, they could work for three months carrying out duties in the Officer Support Group to allow them to return to full fitness before returning to full range of duties.

MAIN GRADE OFFICER POST 2003

  Conditions of service:

  39 hour week

  Weekend on/off

  Salary £28,244

  Duties—supervision of inmates on landings, workshops and prisoner programmes, Security Field Officer.

  In the event of staff in this group being returned to work from sick leave on a limited fitness scheme they could spend three months carrying out duties in the Officer Support Group to allow them to return to full fitness before returning to full range of duties.

OFFICER SUPPORT GRADE 1

  Conditions of service:

  39 hour week

  Weekend on/off

  Salary £18,750

  Duties—gates, secure pods, driving, ECR, visits, switchboard, censors, Fire Officer duties, video linking, catering, works, Dog Handlers, bed watches, escorting of contractors and vehicles, rub down searching of prisoners, searching of staff, searching of buildings (excluding prisoner accommodation).

  Could be cross-deployed to cover Main Grade Officer duties in the event of a shortfall in staffing levels owing to absenteeism. In the event of being cross-deployed the Main Grade Officer salary scale post 2003 would apply.

OFFICER SUPPORT GRADE 1—SUPERVISOR

  Conditions of service:

  39 hour week

  Weekend on/off

  Salary £20.625

  Duties—responsible to the Principal Officer for supervision of Officer Support Grade 1

OFFICER SUPPORT GRADE 2—NIGHT GUARD

  Conditions of service:

  44 hour week

  Weekend on/off

  Salary £19,074

  Duties—as per existing job description

OFFICER SUPPORT GRADE 2—SUPERVISOR

  Conditions of service:

  44 hour week

  Weekend on/off

  Salary £20,980

  Duties—responsible for the supervision of all staff on Night Guard—report to duty Principal Officer each morning

OFFICER SUPPORT GRADE 3—ESCORT GROUP

  Conditions of service:

  39 hour week, Monday to Friday

  Salary £15,300

  Duties—responsible for all escorting outside of establishments and manning of courts. Could be cross-deployed to establishments during court recess to carry out duties of Officer Support Grade 1

OFFICER SUPPORT GRADE 4

  Conditions of service:

  35 hour week or part time working, Monday to Friday

  Salary £13,035

  Duties—work within courts, manning holding rooms and docks, escorting of prisoners to courtrooms, to and from vehicles

  Could be cross-deployed to establishments during court recess to carry out duties of Officer Support Grade 1

OFFICER SUPPORT GRADE 3 AND 4—SUPERVISOR

  Conditions of service:

  39 hour week, Monday to Friday

  Salary £16,830

  Duties—responsible to Manager of Escort Group for all courts and staff under his/her supervision

FUTURE PROGRESSION IN THE NORTHERN IRELAND PRISON SERVICE

  It is intended that the entry point to the Northern Ireland Prison Service in future years should be at either Officer Support Grade 1 or 2, and vacant posts in the future in Main Grade Officer posts should be filled by Officer Support Grades 1 or 2.

Finlay Spratt

Branch Chairman (Northern Ireland)

Prison Officers' Association

25 April 2007





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 13 December 2007