Prison Service: Director General (Hansard, 15 April 1996)

§ The Minister of State, Home Office, (Baroness Blatch)
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced the appointment of Richard Tilt as Director General of the Prison Service on 1st April.

§ Lord Harris of Greenwich
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. But is she aware that some of us are very disturbed by the delay which occurred in making that appointment, a delay of six months between the sacking of Mr. Lewis and the appointment of Mr. Tilt? Is the Minister further aware that many of us welcome the appointment of Mr. Tilt, an experienced former governor, to run the Prison Service and that it will be greeted with great pleasure by prison governors, who have considerable confidence in Mr. Tilt?
However, on the point about delay, may I ask the Minister whether she recalls her words on 19th February? When asked about the delay, the noble Baroness indicated that an attempt was being made to find out who may be the appropriate person to appoint, and said: there are people who are interested in the post. I know personally that people are interested in the post. That is a fact".—[Official Report, 19/2/96; col. 864.] Does the noble Baroness not agree that it is quite clear that nobody from the private sector was prepared to take this job, given the way in which the Home Secretary, Mr. Howard, had behaved over the dismissal of Mr. Lewis? Is she not further aware that it seems very unfortunate that a delay of this kind should occur, given the fact that the appointment of director general is of crucial importance to the development of a coherent policy for the Prison Service and that such delay is quite damaging?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, this is a very sensitive and important post. I welcome what the noble Lord has said about the appointment of Mr. Richard Tilt. During that delay, which was unfortunate, Mr. Tilt was at the head of the Prison Service and performed excellently. On balance, he is considered to be the best person for the job. The noble Lord is wrong in his assumption that nobody was interested in the post. People were interested in the post. Consideration was given to the possibility of employing somebody from outside the service, but it was the view of my right honourable friend that Mr. Richard Tilt was the person for the job. He was appointed, and we wish him well in that post.

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, I ask the noble Baroness whether, apart from the level of remuneration, the terms and conditions of employment are the same for Mr. Tilt as they were for Mr. Lewis. Is it conceded that the Home Secretary behaved unlawfully in the 438 manner in which he dismissed Mr. Lewis? What is the cost to public funds of meeting Mr. Lewis' claim in terms of compensation and costs?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, my right honourable friend was not found to have acted unlawfully in this matter. The costs to which the noble Lord refers are a matter for negotiation. Therefore, it would be quite wrong for me to give any information at this stage about remuneration. It is true that Mr. Lewis left his post with immediate effect. Therefore, compensation for that was always a matter for negotiation. It would be inappropriate for me to enter into any debate on the terms. As to the terms of the appointment, he is a member of the Civil Service and will be paid consistent with the band of salaries for the appropriate post.

§ Lord Ackner
My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House whether there is a significant difference in the salary paid to the present director general? If so, what is the reason for it? In particular, does it affect the scope and responsibility of the position?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, the scope and responsibility of the position remain exactly the same. The range of salary is between £67,500 and £98,000. I cannot say at precisely what point in that range Mr. Tilt is being paid; nor can I make a comparison between his remuneration and that of Mr. Lewis when he left the post. I will let the noble and learned Lord have that information.

§ Lord Monkswell
My Lords, bearing in mind that one of the difficulties that arose in relation to the previous incumbent was, we understand, the day-to-day interference in his job by the Home Secretary, can the noble Baroness say what undertakings the Home Secretary has given to the present incumbent to ensure that he will not interfere on that basis?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite wrong in what he says. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary commissioned the Learmont Report, which found fault with the management of the service right up to board level. It was on the basis of that criticism that Mr. Lewis was asked to leave his post. I do not agree with the underlying presumption in the question put by the noble Lord.

§ Lord Williams of Mostyn
My Lords, is it the case that in respect of Mr. Lewis' civil proceedings against the Home Office the department submitted to judgment in default of defence?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, no liability was admitted in the course of that matter. The judgment was consented to by the Home Office and the defendants' lawyers, but liability for dismissal was not admitted.

§ Lord Harris of Greenwich
My Lords, will the noble Baroness indicate whether or not Mr. Tilt has been made aware of the Home Secretary's expectations as far as concerns operational and policy issues? Has Mr. Tilt been made aware of his direct responsibilities as to operational issues? Has it been made clear to him that 439 the Home Secretary has no responsibility whatever for operational questions, and therefore there will not be the same degree of intervention on a day-to-day basis as was found to be present by the Learmont Report?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, Mr. Tilt is fully aware of his responsibilities as Director General of the Prison Service. It is also true—it will continue to be the case—that there may be times when any Home Secretary has to take a very close interest in what is happening on a day-to-day basis in the Prison Service, but that does not detract from the responsibility of the director general. He has accountability to the Home Secretary, who in turn is accountable to Parliament for the effective running of the Prison Service. To that extent, that is the case. My right honourable friend is appointing an advisory board. That proposition has come almost directly from the Learmont Report. It will be helpful to have an advisory board to look at the operational performance of the service and to advise on policy and performance indicators to the Home Secretary.