House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Oct 1995

Column 507

decisions on the transfer and disciplining of staff are matters for the director general of the Prison Service and his managers, and not for the Secretary of State.

The code also crucially distinguishes between a transfer of a member of staff and his or her suspension from duty. It restricts suspension, saying that

"while suspension is not in itself a punishment or disciplinary penalty it may be seen as such, and that detached duty must be considered, where appropriate, as an alternative to suspension." Mr. Garnier rose --

Mr. Straw: I have already given way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

It is also claimed that as the discretion--

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) rose --

Mr. Straw: I will give way quickly to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Marlow: Some time ago, the hon. Gentleman said that, if the policy is right, it will be all right. Is it not possible that the policy can be right, but that, because what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said was an "arrogant and incompetent" subordinate, is in place, the policy can fail? If that happens because of an arrogant and incompetent subordinate should not that arrogant and incompetent subordinate be fired? Would not the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) fire him in the same circumstances or is he concerned with seeking to smear the Government and not the slightest bit interested in the reform of the Prison Service?

Mr. Straw: What is perfectly apparent is that the people who are not the slightest bit interested in the facts of this situation are Conservative Members. The Secretary of State has continually sought to evade his responsibility for the proper running of the Prison Service. That should be the Secretary of State's overriding policy and it is that which he has evaded continually to this House and outside.

The code of staff discipline also makes it plain that, as discretion about staff transfer or suspension is vested in the director general and not in the Secretary of State, so too is the timing of such decisions. That is far from a trivial matter. If the confidence of staff in the management is to be sustained, staff generally must believe that their colleagues facing transfer or suspension are treated fairly and, where appropriate, without gratuitous humiliation. There is a world of difference between giving time- -just a few days--to go with some dignity, and being peremptorily removed from one's office at a minute's notice.

It is common ground that the director general, after consultation with his senior managers, came to the conclusion late on Monday 9 January that Mr. Marriott should be moved from his post as governor of Parkhurst, should then stay on the Isle of Wight for a period to help with immediate investigations, and should then take up a desk job at Prison Service headquarters. The director general considered the question of whether Mr. Marriott should be suspended from duty, but, having regard to the code, decided that that would be wholly unjustified.

Column 508

Sir Ivan Lawrence (Burton): Following what the hon. Gentleman has just said, was he right when he wrote in The Guardian yesterday that Mr. Lewis was against the removal of Marriott?

Mr. Straw: Yes, Mr. Lewis was against the suspension of Mr. Marriott, as I will show. It has always been on the record--there has never been any doubt about it--that Mr. Lewis was in favour of and indeed decided on Mr. Marriott's transfer. I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not recognise that distinction.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): May I remind the hon. Gentleman of the precise words that he used in The Guardian yesterday? In precisely the words used by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), but not the words the hon. Gentleman has just used, he said in The Guardian yesterday:

"John Marriott was moved against the advice of Derek Lewis". Does the hon. Gentleman now accept that that was a completely incorrect allegation?

Mr. Straw: If that was what The Guardian said, it was wrong because I-- [Interruption.] The last thing I am responsible for is misprints in The Guardian .

Several hon. Members rose --

Mr. Straw: That is the last intervention I am taking. There has never been the least doubt that Mr. Derek Lewis was responsible for the decision to move John Marriott. What is at issue is whether Mr. Lewis was responsible for seeking to suspend Mr. Marriott, which attempt was made by the Secretary of State and not Mr. Lewis. It is also common ground that, at 4.10 pm on the next afternoon, 10 January, the Secretary of State told the House:

"The present governor"--

of Parkhurst--

"is today being removed from his duties at Parkhurst."--[ Official Report , 10 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 33.]

[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House should at least listen to every speech.

Mr. Straw: Where the House and the country are faced with two conflicting and different stories relates to what happened between the decision made by Mr. Lewis to move Mr. Marriott with his duties, and the statement that the Secretary of State made in the House on 10 January that Mr. Marriott was that day being removed from his duties as governor.

The Secretary of State told the Select Committee on Home Affairs that the decision to move Mr. Marriott was an operational decision made by the director general and not by him. The Secretary of State also said of that decision:

"it was there in black and white"--

in the disciplinary code--

"the director general is very familiar with it, there was no need therefore for me to talk to him."

More emphatically, the Secretary of State, in words that he will come to regret, answered an overall charge that I had put to him with the words:

"I reject absolutely the hon. Gentleman's allegations of interference".

Column 509

The director general, however, charges that there was extreme interference by the Secretary of State in his decision to move but not to suspend Mr. Marriott, and about the time when that decision should take effect. In his statement of claim, he complains of "the extreme and unjustified pressure exerted"--

by the Secretary of State--

"upon the Plaintiff . . . to suspend the former Governor of Parkhurst Prison, rather than (as the Plaintiff had decided to do on operational grounds) to move him to another non-operational post". Several hon. Members rose --

Mr. Straw: I am not giving way. I will give way to the Secretary of State but not to hon. Members. I have given way six times already.

The statement of claim says that the

"pressure included a requirement for the Plaintiff to reconsider his decision by a specified deadline and the suggestion that he (the Defendant) would consider overruling the Plaintiff if he did not comply".

The former director general goes on to say:

"following the expiry of the deadline referred to . . . above"-- the defendant insisted--

"contrary to objections put forward by the Plaintiff on operational grounds, that the statement to be made by the defendant to the House of Commons later that day concerning the position of the said governor of Parkhurst Prison would include the word `today' in reference to the steps to be taken (as indeed it subsequently did)". I have spoken with Mr. Lewis at some length and he has confirmed to me the accuracy of the allegations in his statement of claim. He has also said that he is ready-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am quite capable of saying the appropriate word or words. I do not need help. The hon. Gentleman who is speaking from the Front Bench deserves to be heard by the whole House, and I mean the whole House. I hope that the House will now settle down and just listen to the hon. Gentleman. If he is giving way, he will give way. If not, I should be grateful if those seeking to intervene resumed their seats instead of continually standing up.

Mr. Straw: As I said before, I quite understand the reluctance of Conservative Members to listen to the facts of this case and the seriousness of the allegations made against the Secretary of State. Mr. Lewis has said that he is ready to justify and corroborate what he said in his statement of claim to the Home Affairs Select Committee and is writing to the Chairman to confirm that. Mr. Lewis is adamant that he was put under intense pressure by the Secretary of State at a meeting on the morning of 10 January to suspend rather than to move Mr. Marriott. He said that it was an extremely heated meeting during which he was subjected to greater pressure to change a decision which was properly his than on any other occasion that he can recall.

Mr. Lewis then told me that he was directed by the Secretary of State to reconsider his decision and withdrew from the meeting to do so, although others remained. During that withdrawal, he decided to stand by his decision and informed the Secretary of State of that when the meeting resumed. As he went into the resumed meeting, he was shown the text of the Secretary of State's statement, which included the words used that the

"present governor is today being removed"--[ Official Report , 10 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 3.]

Column 510

as governor of Parkhurst. Mr. Lewis says that he objected to the use of the word "today" as he had already decided that the precise timing of the move, within a framework of a few days, was a matter for his operational director, Philippa Drew, to determine at a meeting with Mr. Marriott at Parkhurst to which Miss Drew had travelled that morning.

Mr. Lewis says that the Secretary of State, in response to his objections, simply indicated that he would make his statement as drafted, including the word "today". The allegation is therefore-- [Interruption.] If the Secretary of State wishes to deny it, he can deny it now if he wishes. He has every chance to deny it. If he wants to deny it, he can deny it now.

Mr. Howard: May I remind the hon. Gentleman of what Mr. Lewis said to the Select Committee on 18 January? He said that

"it was essential for operational reasons that the change in governor took place immediately so that there was no distraction or confusion and there was clarity as to who was in charge."

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State has not answered the question. Did the Secretary of State insert into his statement the word "today" against the advice of the director general--yes or no? Let me ask the Secretary of State the question again. Did he insert into his statement to the House, for which he was responsible, the word "today"--Mr. Marriott was to be removed "today"--against the advice of Mr. Lewis?

Mr. Howard: The director general answered that question himself in what he told the Select Committee on 18 January. Every decision that was made on that afternoon was a decision of the director general. It was the director general who decided exactly what happened, as he has told the Home Affairs Select Committee on more than one occasion.

Mr. Straw: The House has now heard the Secretary of State refuse to answer the question twice. It is of crucial importance. Here we have a major dispute as to the evidence between what Mr. Lewis says and the Secretary of State says. Mr. Lewis was not asked this question in the Home Affairs Select Committee; he was asked a different question. Let me ask the Secretary of State this question again. The public are watching. Did the Secretary of State himself insert the word "today" into his statement against the advice of the director general? I ask the Secretary of State to answer that question, yes or no.

As the Secretary of State will not answer, we shall instead let his civil servants give their evidence. I have here the minutes of the meeting which took place on the morning of 10 January. In a moment I shall ensure that the House knows that.

The allegation against the Secretary of State is that he interfered in two decisions of the director general and that, in respect of one of them--as to the timing of the move--he overrode a decision of an operational nature by the fait accompli of his statement to the House. The Secretary of State has sought to say that that version of events is untrue. A statement issued by the Home Office on Tuesday evening said that he

"did not tell Mr. Lewis that the Governor of Parkhurst should be suspended immediately. The Home Secretary did not threaten to instruct Mr. Lewis to suspend the governor of Parkhurst".

Column 511

As we have just heard, the Secretary of State has refused on three occasions to deny a complete difference in testimony. Either Mr. Lewis is telling the truth or the Home Secretary is. Only one of them can be correct.

In briefing issued by the Home Office and Conservative central office, the Secretary of State has sought to rely on the evidence of the director general to the Home Affairs Select Committee, as we have just heard, that

"I and other members of the senior management team concluded . . . for operational reasons that it was vital we made a change in the . . . governor".

That, however, has never been in dispute.

In giving evidence to the Select Committee, Mr. Lewis was bound by the instructions of the Cabinet Office that

"Agency Chief Executives give evidence on behalf of the Minister to whom they are accountable and are subject to that Minister's instruction".

Mr. Howard: Rubbish.

Mr. Straw: It is not rubbish--it happens to be from paragraph 42 of Cabinet Office instructions to every agency chief executive. Is the Secretary of State suggesting that Mr. Lewis should have refused to accept the instructions of the Minister as to that particular?

Mr. Howard: I am suggesting that it is rubbish--and disgraceful rubbish--to suggest that anything in that guidance or any other guidance requires a civil servant to lie to Parliament, which is what the hon. Gentleman is now suggesting that the former director general did.

Mr. Straw: I am not suggesting that for a moment. The Secretary of State cannot rely on the use of the director general's adverb "immediately" to suggest that he personally was requiring that the governor of Parkhurst went "today". The Secretary of State has refused three times to answer the question.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: If Mr. Lewis was under some constraint, according to that direction, at the Home Affairs Select Committee on 18 January, why did he say exactly the same thing when he was under no such constraint three days earlier on "The Frost Programme"?

Mr. Straw: He is still bound. In any event, those answers to that question in no sense elucidate whether the Secretary of State insisted, against the advice of his own director general, that the word "today" should be inserted into the statement. Three times the Secretary of State has refused to answer.

What is in dispute is what happened on 10 January between Mr. Lewis and the Secretary of State. We do not have to rely on the word of the Secretary of State alone. On the question of the decision to remove Mr. Marriott "today", there is ample corroboration.

We know that this part of the Secretary of State's statement was transmitted to Miss Drew in Parkhurst, first by phone and then by fax. She then realised that the discretion that she had been given, which is in no sense inconsistent with the word "immediately", to determine within a matter of a few days when Mr. Marriott should leave his desk, had been overridden by the Secretary of State. Having received a telephone call and fax, she had no alternative but to act immediately on that fait accompli and remove Mr. Marriott from his office that day.

Column 512

That is confirmed by those present in Parkhurst, including the chairman of the board of visitors, Mr. Richard Gully, and is consistent with the letter that Mr. Lewis wrote to the Select Committee stating that Miss Drew

"informed me of (rather than suggested) the specific action that had been taken".

In other words, in that letter Mr. Lewis is making it clear that the decision about the timing of the removal of Mr. Marriott was one made not by him but by someone else, namely the Secretary of State. If there is any doubt about that, why does the Secretary of State not accept the proposal put by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister and allow Miss Drew and Mr. Marriott to give their own evidence on the matter?

Then there is the question of whether the Secretary of State sought the suspension of Mr. Marriott, not just his transfer, at a meeting on the morning of 10 January. It is well known, not least to the press, that the Secretary of State wanted Mr. Marriott's head and wanted to present it to the House that afternoon. He wanted to say that Mr. Marriott had been sacked, as a suspension would show. What is more, those briefing the press on the Secretary of State's behalf gave exactly that steer to the press before and after the Secretary of State's statement, which is why in virtually every newspaper the verbs "sacked" or "fired" were used. The Daily Mail , for example, said:

"Parkhurst Governor Fired Over Break Out".

Time and again the Secretary of State has denied the charge which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made on Tuesday that he asked the director general to suspend Mr. Marriott. He effectively denied it in his evidence to the Select Committee when he said that

"there was no need to talk to"

the director general about such matters. He evaded the question when he was asked on "Newsnight" and he explicitly denied it, as we have heard, in his statement--

Mr. Howard rose --

Mr. Straw: I will go to the minutes first and then I shall give way. The Home Secretary explicitly denied in his statement issued on Tuesday evening that he told Mr. Lewis that the governor should be suspended immediately.

I have here, as I have told the House, the minutes of the meeting-- Mr. Howard rose --

Mr. Straw: In a moment.

Mr. Howard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No. I have the minutes of the meeting which took place on the morning of 10 January, drawn up by the Home Secretary's private secretary, Miss McNaughton. The note is couched in the usual--

Mr. Howard rose --

Mr. Straw: I will give way in a moment. [ Interruption. ]. Mr. Howard rose --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Unless the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor clearly gives way, every hon. Member must resume his seat. Mr. Straw, are you giving way?

Mr. Straw: In a moment, when I have read these minutes out. [Hon. Members:-- "Give way."] It is too late.

Column 513

I gave the Secretary of State three occasions on which to answer the question earlier, but he was not interested in answering it. What the minutes first show-- [Hon. Members: -- "Give way, you coward."]-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not know who said the word "coward"- - [Interruption.] Order. It is not a parliamentary word and I should be grateful if those who feel inclined to use it would go outside the Chamber.

Mr. Straw: This minute is in the form of a note addressed to Mr. Lewis. It said:

"You explained that it was proposed to move the Governor to other duties, pending the outcome of the disciplinary investigation. The Home Secretary asked why this action was being taken, and you explained there were several grounds"--

which were then set out.

"The Home Secretary said that these were serious charges at any time, but following the extra emphasis which Governors had been instructed to give to security post-Whitemoor they could scarcely be over-stated. The Home Secretary said that he entirely agreed with your analysis that Mr. Marriott could not stay as Governor of Parkhurst".

The note goes on to show, in my judgment, that the Secretary of State--[ Interruption. ]. It shows that he was the first to raise this matter. It went on:

"but he wondered whether it was right for Mr. Marriott to be moved to other duties as distinct from being suspended from duty. You explained that the Code required consideration to be given to whether there were other duties available for somebody whose position in their current post was untenable . . . Moreover, you wished Mr. Marriott to be available to advise the incoming governor (when he was appointed) and to give assistance to the Learmont Inquiry, pending his being allocated to non-operational duties. The Home Secretary pointed out that this would almost inevitably be seen as a fudge, designed to enable Mr. Marriott not to be suspended. The tasks you had mentioned could scarcely be described as another post." What those minutes show--[ Interruption. ] For all the bluster of Conservative Members, what the minutes show is that the Secretary of State himself raised the issue of suspension.

Mr. Howard: I was entitled to.

Mr. Straw: The Home Secretary says that he was entitled to. He complained about the decision. The minutes are also entirely consistent with Mr. Lewis's allegation, and that of my right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party, that the Secretary of State told Mr. Lewis that he wanted Mr. Marriott to be suspended.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I shall deal with the point that he is making--which is entirely without substance--in the course of my speech, but I want to put a question to him on an allegation that he made just a few moments ago. It is necessary for me to remind the House of what he was saying because I want to make it quite clear that I am now specifically accusing the hon. Gentleman of misleading the House this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman--[ Interruption. ].

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a very senior member of the Government. He must know that he cannot charge another hon. Member across the Dispatch Box with misleading the House. I suggest that he rephrases whatever it is that he wishes to accuse the hon. Gentleman of.

Mr. Howard: I shall certainly rephrase that remark. I accuse the hon. Gentleman of a fundamental inaccuracy

Column 514

in what he told the House a few minutes ago. He suggested on "Today" yesterday morning that an answer that I gave to the Select Committee indicated that the accounts which I have given of what took place on 10 January were wrong.

The answer that I gave to the Select Committee on that day was an answer that I gave to a question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). My hon. Friend is at present on his sick bed, but he took the trouble to write to the hon. Gentleman yesterday from his sick bed pointing out that the hon. Gentleman had completely misrepresented the nature of his question, and that his question was directed to something entirely different--to general policy matters and not to specific events of 10 January--and he ended his letter with the following words:

"I would be grateful if you would use your speech tomorrow to correct the untrue allegation you made this morning. Regrettably I shall not be in the House because I am at home recovering from a recent operation."

Next Section

Home Page