Prison Service - Public safety should be top priority

In publishing the bill to privatise the prison escort service yesterday, Justice Minister Michael McDowell seems to be defying his own logic.

His better judgment originally was to desist from publishing it "in order to facilitate negotiations with the Prison Officers Association (POA)", which was a sensible approach.

Those negotiations came to an abrupt end when the prison officers decided to reject the minister's offer which had the backing of their own executive by a decisive two-to-one majority.

Consequent upon that rejection, the minister announced he was going ahead with proposals to which the prison officers objected. They included the closure of two prisons and the privatisation of two open prisons, as well as privatising the prison escort service.

The issue was on the agenda at their annual conference this week, and during a closed session on Thursday the delegates decided they were prepared to meet the minister, and, presumably, further discussions would ensue. It was a sensible decision which offered at least the possibility of finding some ground which would facilitate the unblocking of the stalemate.

He agreed to meet the POA but almost in the same breath announced he was going ahead with publication of the Prisons Bill 2005 and yesterday released details of it.

The minister had previously warned the prison officers of the consequences of their rejection of his package and this latest response in publishing the bill would appear to be tempered with a tinge of petulance.

At the core of this dispute is the issue of overtime, which, in the Prison Service, is costing the inordinate annual sum of €60 million.

Understandably, the Government wants to reduce it substantially and the minister's offer provided for a salary range of between €48,000 and €70,000, a lump sum of €13,750, as well as an 8% operational allowance.

By any measure, the financial element of the package is generous and what was expected of the POA was a 39-hour working week with seven hours' mandatory overtime per officer per week.

It is this latter item that is causing problems for the prison officers and they want to discuss changes to the overtime bands, without incurring any extra cost to the Government.

Presumably, the reference to no additional cost to the Government means the financial package offered to reduce the current exorbitant overtime bill, and not retaining the status quo of that bill.

The POA has indicated its wish to reopen discussions with the minister and his officials rather than engage in industrial action, which would seem inevitable if the present climate is allowed to persist.

POA president Gabriel Keaveny has expressed the desire to remove any opposition to the deal and that could happen by changes to the overtime bands.

Should that happen in discussions with department officials, the association has signalled its willingness to hold another ballot of its members.

That would appear to be the most sensible and logical approach, because talking about a problem, industrial or otherwise, is preferable to ignoring it or adopting a confrontational attitude.

Apart altogether from the objections of the POA to proposals of privatising the prison escort service and some prisons, they will certainly give rise to misgivings among the public because of the safety implications.

The safety of people, and communities, is more important than any question of cutting costs and the minister must bear this in mind.