What action is planned against Prison Chief and was he paid bonuses for his failures, asks Allister
22 September 2010
A week on from the Billy Wright Inquiry’s multiple criticisms of the NI Prison Service, and particularly key management decisions which it found facilitated the Wright murder, TUV Leader Jim Allister has raised with both the DFP Minister and the Head of the Civil Service, Mr Bruce Robinson, the future of DEL Permanent Secretary, Alan Shannon, who was Chief Executive of the Prison Service at the material time and who himself was directly censured in Lord MacLean’s report.
Mr Allister has also demanded to know if Mr Shannon was paid any performance bonuses during the period of his Maze stewardship, which has been so heavily criticiced and, if so, the TUV Leader has called for them to be recouped.
In his letter the TUV Leader describes the ‘litany of failings’ while Mr Shannon was in charge as ‘quite shocking’, made all the more appalling by the judicial finding that many of them facilitated the murder. He continues, “I, for one, do not understand, nor do I believe will the general public, how one so comprehensively found wanting can continue in one of the highest public service offices in the land. If the process of expensive public inquiry is to mean anything, then its judicial findings must have consequences, and be seen to have such.”
Mr Allister then asks, “what processes have been initiated to deal with this matter in a manner which can command public confidence and deal with the expectation that someone so censured does not escape consequences for his actions and inactions.”
The text of Mr Allister’s probing letter to Minister Wilson is as follows, with the letter to Bruce Robinson being in similar terms:-
Dear Minister,
Re: Billy Wright Inquiry Findings
I write to you in your capacity as the Minister with oversight for the NI Civil Service following the far-reaching indictment of Mr Shannon, who now serves as Permanent Secretary in DEL, by Lord MacLean and his panel, arising from Mr Shannon’s role as Chief Executive of NIPS.
The litany of failings found within NIPS, while under Mr Shannon’s control and direction, is quite shocking. In addition to direct personal criticisms as head of NIPS, he cannot escape responsibility for multiple failings which Lord MacLean variously classified as ‘wrongful acts and omissions’ or ‘wrongful omissions’ which contributed either directly or indirectly the murder of Wright. There are several relevant findings, including 8.132, 12.67, 13.143, 16.12, 16.17, 16.18, 16.19 and at 13.121-125 we have the important failure to even inform the Minister about the ‘powder keg’ finding!
Individually and cumulatively these are deplorable failings, made all the more appalling by the judicial finding that many of them facilitated murder in the prison.
I, for one, do not understand, nor do I believe will the general public, how one so comprehensively found wanting can continue in one of the highest public service offices in the land. If the process of expensive public inquiry is to mean anything, then its judicial findings must have consequences, and be seen to have such.
Accordingly, I wish to know what processes have been initiated to deal with this matter in a manner which can command public confidence and deal with the expectation that someone so censured does not escape consequences for his actions and inactions.
Additionally, please advise if during his service in NIPS Mr Shannon was the beneficiary of any performance bonuses and, if so, is recoupment anticipated? It would surely add to the public unease if any such bonuses were paid and retained for service now so strongly criticised in a judicial inquiry.
Yours sincerely,
