Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
20-39)
STEPHEN WOOLER
CB
8 DECEMBER 2009
Q20 Mr Tyrie: What would be the harm
with that implied criticism?
Stephen Wooler: The harm in the
implied criticism?
Mr Tyrie: You said there would be that
implied criticism where the roles are aligned. What would be the
harm?
Q21 Chairman: Would it matter?
Stephen Wooler: I think the risk
is that it can make a minister who is both responsible for the
service being delivered and for the inspectorate less receptive
to the bad news. I do not confine that principle to the Attorney
General's Office. One of the characteristics of the criminal justice
system over the last decade or so has been the move from local
management to central management. For example, you have a probation
service now which used to be locally based which is now a national
service. You have a court service, and magistrates' courts certainly
used to be locally based, which is now nationally managed, and
therefore one could think of it almost as a conflict of interest
on the part of a minister who is receiving reports which may suggest
that the quality of service is not what it should be in relation
to something for which that minister is also responsible.
Q22 Mr Tyrie: Your memorandum in
several places emphasises the need for better, more robust, as
you put it, performance management within the CPS as a prerequisite
(although you do not use that word) for getting a lighter touch
inspection regime.
Stephen Wooler: Yes.
Q23 Mr Tyrie: This seems to be the
heart of the matter, does it not? You are saying that the CPS
are not doing a very good internal management job themselves.
Stephen Wooler: I think that sometimes
the CPS, in delivering what are very good and sound policies,
do not ensure that they are as fully embedded at the operational
level as they should be. Part of the issue, as I have said in
successive reports, is the number of initiatives which those who
at the operational level have had to cope with.
Q24 Mr Tyrie: What is your advice
to your successor on how to make sure his recommendations are
acted upon in that case?
Stephen Wooler: I think my advice
would be to carry out swifter follow-ups than perhaps I have been
responsible for and perhaps to be more assertive in calling the
CPS to account for progress in relation to recommendations that
are made.
Q25 Mr Tyrie: Publicly to account?
Stephen Wooler: Yes, if necessary.
Q26 Mr Tyrie: Do you think that they
are responsive to that sort of criticism? How sensitive are they
in the spectrum from very thin-skinned all the way through to
rhinoceros? Where do you put them on the spectrum?
Stephen Wooler: I think that the
relationships with the CPS have been good. I think they do listen.
I think they are very sensitive to public criticism, and understandably
so, and the result of that is that they do react but quite slowly,
and part of that is again the pace of change and the number of—
Q27 Mr Tyrie: So they feel the pain
but they do not react quickly?
Stephen Wooler: They do not react
quickly, no.
Q28 Mr Tyrie: I am trying to think
what creature has that particular characteristic. I am told on
my right by a palaeontologist that it must be a dinosaur, but
I am afraid I certainly could not speak from personal experience
to confirm that. Could I just ask about the terms and conditions
of your successor, which I am not sure I fully understood, and
you may not know this, given the way you were appointed? This
is a five-year fixed term of appointment. Is it renewable?
Stephen Wooler: There is nothing
that says it has to be a five-year fixed term. The advert that
I saw was, I think, silent on that.
Q29 Mr Tyrie: Who has been doing
your annual appraisals?
Stephen Wooler: I have not had
an annual appraisal for some time.[1]
This thinking underpinned my answers to the effect
that the absence of an annual appraisal would not be a disadvantage.
On a fixed term appointment and without any performance pay issues,
it would not serve a significant and useful purpose.
Q30 Mr Tyrie: "Annual" by definition
is—how many years have gone by since you last had an appraisal?
Stephen Wooler: Probably two or
three years.
Q31 Mr Tyrie: So we are putting in
an annual appraisal. Who would be doing that for your successor?
Stephen Wooler: I think the last
time I had an annual appraisal it was done by what was then called
the Legal Secretary to the Law Officers, now the Director General.
It is a change of title with the change of office.
Q32 Mr Tyrie: It is very unusual
for people to be in a job where they are not even quite sure who
is monitoring their work. Most people keep quite alert to that.
I am sure most politicians know who the Chief Whip is in their
party.
Stephen Wooler: I report to the
Attorney General and the Attorney General is the person who monitors
the work. Again, it is not uncommon, I think, to have a statutory
office holder who does not have a reporting officer.
Q33 Mr Tyrie: I am just wondering
whether you would have any advice to offer on whether this should
be a fixed term and non-renewable contract in order to secure
full independence, a long, fixed, non-renewable term.
Stephen Wooler: I think the advice
that I would offer there is that I think it should be fixed term.
I think possibly that it should be renewable once, but once only.
I know from experience in Northern Ireland, where there is a statutory
limit, that the time came when the first chief inspector had to
move on because of statute, but before the job was complete.
Q34 Mr Tyrie: Can I just persist
a little with the structure that you think is appropriate to secure
the level of independence and outspokenness required to do your
job? Are we agreed that it would be prudent at the very least
to have a long fixed term, possibly non-renewable contract? That
is something you are not sure about. You said a moment ago that
maybe it should be renewable.
Stephen Wooler: Yes.
Q35 Mr Tyrie: Who do you think should
be doing the appraisal?
Stephen Wooler: I would also suggest,
in terms of salary, that it should either be a fixed salary with
a formula for increase, if any increase in the present climate
were thought appropriate, or linked to another position. There
are precedents. For example, I think the DPP and the Director
of the SFO are linked to particular judicial posts in terms of
salary. In terms of who should appraise the Chief Inspector, I
think that is more difficult. I personally have not found any
problem in not having an annual report. I think regular discussions
with the Attorney General provide clear feedback as to whether
one is delivering an inspection programme that meets the ministerial
needs, and I think also the Chief Inspector has to have regard
to the fact that there are other accountabilities, accountabilities
to the public, to Parliament and perhaps—
Q36 Mr Tyrie: That is what we are
interested in.
Stephen Wooler: —there are
occasions when one would—and I have had to do it; I have
had to press on and say I am going to inspect a particular topic
even though it has been clear that that has not been welcome,
and so I think that, although I have had a form of appraisal from
the Legal Secretary in the past, it always started off by saying,
"I am not this person's line manager but I am filling out
this form". It was an artificial exercise and it fell into
disuse. Not having an appraisal was not a problem because there
was plenty of feedback from other stakeholders as to how well
the job was being done.
Q37 Mr Tyrie: And who can sack you?
Stephen Wooler: The Attorney General
could terminate the appointment.
Q38 Mr Tyrie: Do you think there
should be some extra hoops through which the Attorney General
has to pass before he or she can do that in order to give you
some protection should your successor want to operate in that
area where by criticising the service he ends up criticising the
Attorney General, the point to which the Chairman alluded earlier?
Stephen Wooler: I think that would
complicate it unduly. I think if a minister feels it right to
dispense with the services of a public office holder the scrutiny
that will inevitably be brought to bear through the media, through
Parliament, is quite a powerful safeguard.
Q39 Chairman: In your memorandum
there is a very interesting point, that in the early days of your
work it would have been dangerous but a possible outcome to become
a kind of surrogate management for the CPS because the CPS had
not really developed its own management effectively at that time.
Is that a danger that has passed?
Stephen Wooler: I think that has
largely passed. The CPS is developing its management structures
much more strongly now than it did. I think the relationship is
changing and it is becoming much more one of dialogue and I think
we would want to influence its development through that dialogue,
but the time when we were sometimes regarded as the eyes and ears
of the senior managers in the area is now largely past.
1 Note by witness: My current status is that
of an established Civil Servant (my parent department being the
Treasury Solicitor's Department) and I am on loan to the position
of HM Chief Inspector-an independent statutory office holder.
But I retain the terms and conditions of a senior Civil Servant
in pay band 2 including the performance bonus arrangements. I
should have made the point that such an arrangement is not a satisfactory
one and ought to be avoided for a preferred candidate. I suspect-but
do not know-that the new appointee will be on a different basis.
Nonetheless, I thought it worth flagging up to the Committee.
I believe that I have discharged my responsibilities with substantial
independence and without being influenced or inhibited by the
inevitability that I would have to repatriate myself if I wish
to continue a career in the Civil Service or by performance pay
considerations. The latter was on one occasion the subject of
contention after I had found it necessary to press on with a particular
inspection despite clear indications from officials that that
was unhelpful. Whilst I could not assert any direct link between
the two matters, it is a situation which should be avoided. Back
| 
