Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Sacked prisons chief 'presided over waste'

John Rentoul
Wednesday 22 May 1996 23:02 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Conservative MPs yesterday re-opened the row over the sacking of Derek Lewis, the former head of the Prison Service, accusing him of having presided over an "unacceptable" breakdown in financial controls which led to an overspend last year.

Mr Lewis was sacked by Michael Howard, the Home Secretary, after an inquiry into prison escapes from Whitemoor and Parkhurst - although the Home Office in effect accepted he had been wrongfully dismissed when it paid him pounds 220,000 earlier this year.

David Hunt, the former Cabinet minister, seized on the damning findings of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), published yesterday while Mr Lewis was giving evidence to another select committee. Commenting on the PAC report, which detailed an unauthorised surge in Prison Service spending breaching limits set by Parliament, Mr Hunt accused Mr Lewis of failing to put financial systems in place quickly enough.

Mr Lewis replied that when he took over the service in 1993 "taxpayers' money was being wasted on a gross scale", but that control systems could not be brought in "overnight".

Mr Hunt said: "I am not talking about overnight, but over two years."

Mr Lewis was defended by Jim Cousins, Labour MP for Newcastle Central, who said that, although he had been subjected to the "pressure of relentless ministerial interference" from Mr Howard, ministers had taken no interest in financial matters, despite being warned about "inadequate" controls.

Asked about the areas of prison management in which Home Office ministers had "meddled", Mr Lewis said they ranged from "the form that a search of an individual prison should take . . . to matters of the disciplining of individual members of staff".

Mr Cousins said that Michael Forsyth, then a prisons minister, had been warned in a minute dated October 1994 that "financial controls in some establishments are inadequate".

Mr Lewis, giving evidence to the Public Services Committee on his clash with Mr Howard over the difference between policy - for which ministers are accountable - and operations, was also backed by one of the Tories on the committee, Sir Peter Lloyd, MP for Fareham. Sir Peter said Mr Lewis was the victim of a "surfeit of shock-horror reports" about escapes and the general state of prisons.

Mr Lewis told the committee that the chief executives of government agencies should be freed from political interference and made directly accountable to Parliament. He suggested they should be made independent of ministers, on the model of police chief constables.

He said that he had been "constrained" by the rules governing civil servants when he gave evidence to MPs immediately after the Parkhurst break-out, which required him to stick to his minister's line.

"Fears that a licence to speak publicly on policy matters would bring destructive and intolerable conflict between agency chief executives and their ministers are unfounded," he told the committee.

"It does not happen in the case of the police or the Bank of England and one of the signs of a mature democracy and sound government is that it can survive and thrive on reasoned public debate."

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in