Michael Howard, the home secretary, and Derek Lewis, the former director-general of prisons, may not agree on many issues but one on which they would agree is the need for clearly defined areas of responsibility and accountability in an employment relationship.The statutory requirements relating to the need to spell out duties are minimal.

The written particulars (which s 1 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 require s to be given to the employee within two months following the commencement of employment) refer merely to the need to provide the employee with a job title, or a brief description of the work for which he or she is employed.The service agreements of many senior executives go much further.

A well drafted document, or the job specification to which it refers, should set out the executive's reporting lines, duties and areas of responsibility.The major difficulty which arose between the home secretary and Mr Lewis was deciding where one party's responsibility stopped and the other's started.

The home secretary maintained that he was responsible for the formation of policy whilst its implementation was Mr Lewis' job.Mr Lewis was sacked following the release of a report by General John Learmant.

The report, which focused on the escape of three prisoners from Parkhurst, criticised the Prison Service's performance since undergoing semi-privatisation and becoming a government agency in 1992 under Mr Lewis' guardianship.The report's findings led Mr Howard to demand his director-general's immediate resignation.

When this resignation was not forthcoming, Mr Lewis was dismissed.

Mr Lewis has now issued a writ in the High Court alleging wrongful dismissal.

He is reportedly claiming damages calculated by reference to the salary and the bonus he would have received if the contract term had been honoured in full.

The home secretary has cited the criticisms raised regarding Mr Lewis' performance as justification for summary dismissal.Mr Lewis has made clear his belief that he is not solely responsible for all the difficulties that have arisen.

It is reported that he believes that his job was made infinitely more difficult as a result of inconsistency of policy and lack of freedom of action.

The writ he has issued reportedly catalogues a series of incidences where the home secretary became involved in the day-to-day running of the Prison Service.When considering the director-general's role, General Learmant's report acknowledged a very high ministerial involvement in operational matters.

The Prison Service is one of the newly established government agencies.

These agencies are, in reality, a half-way house between a government department and a private sector business.

The HM Prison Service framework document illustrates some of the difficulties in establishing which duties and responsibilities are allocated to the home secretary and which are given to the director-general.The section that deals with the home secretary's duties states: 'The home secretary will not normally become involved in the day-to-day management of the Prison Service but will expect to be consulted by the director-general on handling operational matters which could give rise to grave public or parliamentary concern.'Now consider the director-general's role as set out in the framework document.

He is responsible for 'day-to-day management of the Prison Service and is also the home secretary's principal policy adviser on matters relating to the Prison Service'.

The framework document does not clearly define each party's area of responsibility.

The document indicates that the home secretary can become involved in day-to-day management when he is of the view that grave public or parliamentary matters are at stake.

Does that mean, in those circumstances, responsibility passes solely to him? Is he the sole arbiter of when that situation is deemed to have arisen? What is meant by 'consultation'? Does the director-general merely inform the home secretary of the decisions h e has taken or does the home secretary have the right of veto? Issues such as these may be clarified if Mr Lewis' case continues to a full High Court hearing.Part of the problem may be that the relationship between those employed in high profile government agencies and those to whom they are accountable has not yet fully evolved.

Government agencies are a relatively recent innovation.The problems raised as a result of the director-general's dismissal may haunt government agencies for some time to come.

The danger in any organisation is that if a manager is not provided with a clearly defined role, he may claim that as a result of changes his position is being eroded or, alternatively, his role has been unacceptably expanded.

This brings with it the risk that the aggrieved employee will argue that the developing relationship has led to a breakdown in the relationship of mutual trust and confidence that should exist between every employer and employee.Disillusioned employees, particularly if they are the subject of fierce public criticism, may decide to treat themselves as having been constructively dismissed with consequent claims for wrongful dismissal or unfair dismissal, or both.The clash between the home secretary and his director-general illustrates the urgent need to re-examine the roles of those in day-to-day control of a government agency and the political masters to whom they are presently accountable.