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
| 
