Prisons: Chairmen of Boards of Visitors (Hansard, 11 December 1996)

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch)
My Lords, in 1995 a review of the role of boards of visitors found there was no formal recognition of the role of chairman or vice-chairman of a board of visitors. These office holders would 1078 have been appointed by the Home Secretary solely on their capacity as members of the board. Therefore, in order to enhance their role, the review recommended that a chairman and vice-chairman should be appointed for each board by the Secretary of State following a secret ballot of that board. The Home Secretary warmly accepted this recommendation, which was incorporated into the Prison Rules and issued on 22nd July 1996.

§ Lord Harris of Greenwich
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that rather remarkable reply. However, can the noble Baroness indicate why no previous Home Secretary has even contemplated taking such a power? Will she also confirm that the members of boards of visitors, all of whom are appointed by Ministers of the Crown, are doing valuable, unpaid work for the community? In this situation, is it not quite extraordinary that Ministers are going to reserve to themselves the power to appoint chairmen and vice-chairmen? Can the Minister tell us what are the criteria for non-appointment of a recommended chairman or vice-chairman? Perhaps the noble Baroness could also tell us whether there will be any explanation if in fact a Minister vetoes the recommendation of the local board of visitors.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, the noble Lord has asked me quite a few questions. I should tell him that it was recognised that changes within the Prison Service—for example, agency status—meant that there were increased demands on the boards of visitors and, therefore, it was thought to be appropriate that there should be a review. The review had a number of representatives on it: there were nine past or present serving board members; Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons; the governor of Her Majesty's Prison of Maidstone was co-opted; and representations were invited from groups with an interest in penal affairs, including all boards of visitors, prison governors and MPs.
I should also tell the noble Lord that one of the remarkable and unanimously agreed factors concerned the nature of the problems faced by boards of visitors and the solutions. That group of people independently came to the view that their role should be enhanced and new procedures recognising the importance of the chairman and vice-chairman were recommended and agreed. I have to say that it is very unlikely that the Home Secretary would veto an appointment. There will be a secret ballot by the board; names will be put before the Secretary of State in an order of preference decided and determined by the board, and the Home Secretary would be guided by that. But, at the end of the day, it will be given the importance that it deserves; namely, a Secretary of State approved appointee.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, is it not essential that whoever makes such appointments should be answerable to Parliament? Therefore, is it not right that the system which my noble friend the Minister has explained in some detail should continue?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. The answer is, of course, yes. My right honourable friend is accountable to Parliament and it will be for him to account to Parliament for the way in which the boards of visitors are working.

§ Lord Allen of Ahbeydale
My Lords, we seem to have come a very long way from the arrangements which I recall whereby, at a local prison, ultimate responsibility for supervision and discipline rested with an independent panel of visiting justices. Do not the new arrangements mean in practice, to put it crudely, that if a chairman submits a report or makes comments to the media that are critical of the Home Office he will do so in the knowledge that next time round he may find that he is "for the chop"?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I cannot agree with what the noble Lord has just said. The members act independently and each and every member of the board has an opportunity to speak and have access to the Home Secretary and to the Minister responsible for prisons. Many hoards of governors—members and boards collectively—have been critical of the Government and the Government have not immediately responded by sacking them as boards of visitors. What we have said is that it will be for the boards, on the basis of a secret ballot, to place the names in order of preference before the Home Secretary. However, to give the process some cachet and to recognise the importance of those posts, the Home Secretary will make the appointment. However, occasionally it is just possible that a name will be put before the Home Secretary of a person who has a particular record of not attending meetings and not conducting himself or herself as they ought to, both as members, and/or possible chairmen. If there is a question of the suitability of the candidate, there will be consultation with the boards of visitors to present another name to the Home Secretary.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, I am sure the Minister means to be reassuring when she says it will only be in exceptional circumstances that the Home Secretary will overrule the result of the secret ballot of members of boards of visitors. Will she tell the House on what information the Secretary of State could possibly overrule the members of boards of visitors, who know about such matters as attendance and suitability when they make their judgment? It is difficult to see how anything other than a purely theoretical centralising drive makes the Home Secretary want this sort of responsibility.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, a fairly important group of people came to the view that this should be the process for appointing a chairman and vice-chairman to a board of visitors. The Home Secretary has recognised that. He also recognises that in almost all cases the preference of the hoard, on the basis of a secret ballot, will be accepted and the Home Secretary will ratify that appointment and recommend those names for appointment. I have given one example; namely, if anything is known about a member who is recommended to the Secretary of State for one of these 1080 appointments that would deem that person to be unsuitable to fulfil that role, for example if that person had failed to carry out his duties during a recent appointment, or if he had a record of simply not attending meetings. It is unlikely that the name of such a person would be put forward in such circumstances. However, if such a person were to be proposed for these appointments, it is unlikely that the Home Secretary would appoint such a person.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, what will the Home Secretary know that the boards of visitors do not? That was my question.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I am being drawn on what could literally be a rare occurrence; namely, a case where there is reason to doubt the suitability of a candidate for the post. In that circumstance there would be consultation with a board as to why a rogue name had been proposed to the Home Secretary. The noble Lord looks puzzled. If someone has a record of simply not attending meetings it would be strange for that person to be recommended as chairman of a board of visitors. In that circumstance it would be for the Home Secretary to query why that name was proposed. However, such a case is unlikely. I hope that noble Lords opposite will concentrate on the fact that these appointments are mostly made on the basis of recommendations from boards after secret ballots are held. In almost all cases the Home Secretary will be guided by the views and preferences of the board.

§ Lord Harris of Greenwich
My Lords, this matter becomes more and more confusing, if the Minister will forgive my saying so. She suggests that the reason the Home Secretary would veto a name for chairman or vice-chairman is that that person did not attend meetings. Does she think that members of boards are half-witted? Why would they want to have a chairman who does not turn up to meetings? Is it not quite clear that what the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has said is true; namely, that this is a new procedure to get rid of chairmen or vice-chairmen of boards of visitors who have said something to embarrass the department of the noble Baroness?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I profoundly disagree with the final point that the noble Lord made. If anyone is confused in this House it clearly must be the noble Lord. It is not the answers I have given that have caused confusion. The noble Lord made my point for me. It is almost inconceivable that a board of visitors, having held a secret ballot, would put forward a name of someone who was unsuitable. However, the measure we are discussing allows for the possibility that if a rogue name were proposed of someone who did not have a good attendance record or who was unsuitable in some other way, and therefore should not be appointed, at least the Home Secretary could use his veto and not make the appointment.