Management Board Briefing
Key points from the Management Board briefing held on the 26th February 2009
The meeting was chaired for the first time by Sir David Latham.
Late submission of claims
It was reported that the Audit and Risk Management Committee had found that some members were failing to submit expenses forms on time with the result that significant claims had built up. It was agreed in principle that claims should be submitted on a monthly basis and no claim should be older than 3 months unless there were extenuating circumstances. It was agreed that a policy paper should be prepared.
Parole Board Rules
Ministers had now approved the amended Rules and it was anticipated that they would come into force on 1.4.09.
Fall in release rates
It had been planned to discuss the issue of falling release rates at the Annual Conference. However, after further consideration it was decided that good quality research was needed to find the full reasons behind the trend. There was no funding at present and in the circumstances research would be deferred to a later date when it could be done properly.
Guidance on the setting of Directions
A draft guidance document on the setting of directions had been seen by the Procedural Guidance Committee and circulated to the Management Board for comment.
DCR cases going to oral hearings
The number and reasons for DCR cases going to oral hearing were being investigated with a report at the next meeting.
Future status of the Parole Board
The Chairman said that his initial thoughts about the future were that, as a first step, there was a need to establish what the functions of the Parole Board were. Once that had been determined, a decision could be made about the structure of the Board and then where its final landing place should be. He said that there were a range of issues which needed to be considered including inadmissible evidence, hearsay evidence and whether the oral hearing process should be inquisitorial or adversarial. The Chairman said that he was keen that the Board had an early input into the consultation paper before it was published.
NAO Report/Public Accounts Committee
The report by the Public Accounts Committee was to be published on 17.3.09. It was anticipated that the report would contain conclusions and recommendations. The NAO had advised that there would be no opportunity to check the report for accuracy but an embargoed version would be given to the Board 24 hours before publication.
Generic Parole Process
The Board was working closely with the Public Protection Casework Section of NOMS to implement the new whole system process for indeterminate sentence cases from 1.4.09. PPCS had upgraded their IT casework management system (PPUD) to support the new process.
Business Plan
A near final draft of the 2009/10 Business Plan had been prepared and submitted to the sponsor having taken into account all comments received since the last meeting.
Members security
Concern was expressed that members names continued to appear on the recommendations issued in single member recall cases. It was agreed that the Health and Safety Committee should be asked to take a closer look at the adequacy of the facilities and safety arrangements at hearings in prisons and to review the advice given to members and staff.
Recall Case Progression
There were 300 recall cases being held by the Public Protection Casework Section in Croydon that required a further review. When this had happened previously, a number of members agreed to travel to Croydon to consider the cases. The intention was the same on this occasion although the take up from members had been limited. The meeting endorsed the arrangements.
Monthly Monitoring Report
It was reported that paper hearings were meeting their targets. However, there was increasing concern about the rising number of oral hearing cases that could not be considered because of insufficient judges. The situation had not been helped by the recent poor weather which resulted in the oral hearings of 47 prisoners being cancelled. It was considered that the report on the number of cases adjourned/deferred may be misleading as some of them were resolved on the papers. It was agreed that this needed to be recorded and that a detailed analysis should be available on the adjourned and deferred cases.
Quarterly Meeting with Access to Justice Group
The arrangements for monitoring the work of the Board set up by the new sponsor were more sensible and focused on the main issues. There were concerns about the number of oral hearing cases outstanding and it had been agreed to set up an action group to look specifically at how to deal with the backlog. This would look at issues such as whether cases were being referred to the Parole Board too soon after the previous review and also whether advice cases should continue to be referred to the Board.
Financial update
The forecast overspend was £307k. This would be covered by reserves but could not be repeated in future. One of the side effects of the overspend was that the large bank balance that auditors had previously questioned would no longer be an issue. The sponsor had stressed the need for the backlog of cases to be addressed. The budget granted by the MOJ of £9.8m only covered business as usual and was based on 2 cases per oral hearing and an adjournment/deferral rate of 10%. It would take a further £1.2m to tackle the backlog. However, even if the money was available there were insufficient judges to hear all the cases.
Potential changes to the budget
A range of options to save money had been examined. It was agreed that the 2010 Annual Lecture should be cancelled as the savings were over £70,000 and the benefits of such an event this year were unclear. It was suggested that the Directions in ESP recall cases could be considered by the Duty Member rather than be dealt with as an ICM case. During discussion it was agreed that the removal of panel secretaries from Smith and West cases should not be pursued. There was support for the proposal to increase the fee for retired judges and for independent members to share the writing of reasons.
Judicial Reviews
It was reported that the case of Black could have implications that would mean the Board would no longer have to defend breaches of article 5 (4) in respect of parole decisions. The case of Headley was a worry as the judge appeared to put himself in the place of the panel and this would be taken to the Court of Appeal. The case of Fossitt was a challenge against the attendance of victims at oral hearings and the outcome indicated that there were no problems in law with regard to witnesses attending. It was, however, noted that the MOJ had not included the attendance of victims in the new Parole Board Rules.
Member Recruitment
Adverts for the 2009 recruitment round had now been published and there had been several thousand hits on the website. Over 200 applications had already been received and these were being handled by Penna, the recruitment consultants appointed by the sponsor department. A final decision on the number of new members to be appointed would not be made until May. Provisionally, 15 independent members were being sought and as many judges and clinicians as possible.
Equality and Diversity
The first meeting of the Equality and Diversity Steering Group had taken place on 17.2.09 and had gone really well. Members and staff had discussed some difficult issues and it had been agreed to produce a position paper to identify the priorities in the action plan. Linda McHugh commented that the contribution of the external member of the group, Cindy Butts, was very helpful.
Investors in People
The new IiP assessor was due to visit Grenadier House and meet with members and staff between 2 and 4 March. A great deal of progress had been achieved in implementing the action plan and it was hoped that this would help towards the Parole Board being re-accredited.
2009 Annual Conference
The meeting noted that plans for the Conference were well advanced and it was anticipated that it would be a cost effective method of providing a significant amount of training for members. As well as keynote sessions updating members on the future of the Board, there would be constituency group meetings and workshops. There would also be a display area where members can learn more about the work of different teams within the Board and the Public Protection Casework Section of NOMS.
2010 Conference
The meeting noted that the Chesford Grange Hotel in Kenilworth offered a potential saving of £20,000 when compared with the Marriott Forest in Arden. However, when last visited, Chesford Grange was not found to be suitable. It had since undergone refurbishment and it was agreed that a further visit would be necessary to determine suitability
Justice and Japan
Chris Glenn gave a short recount of her visit to Japan including the two lectures she gave. Her paper was noted.
Evaluation of our training investment
This was the first evaluation of training investment submitted to the Management Board. The paper supported the idea that training was valuable and the meeting agreed with the main principles outlined in the paper. Linking specific cases to the effectiveness of training was seen as inappropriate and it was agreed that such references should be deleted from the paper. There was also a query about the cost quoted for keeping a prisoner in prison. Continuous Performance Development was something that the Board was looking at and this would be discussed at the Annual Conference.
Chris Glenns final meeting
Chris Glenn said that the meeting would be her last before she left the Board and she wanted to express her thanks for the advice and support she had received from the Management Board. The Management Board in turn expressed their gratitude for all her hard work and wished her well for the future.
The Parole Board. Working with others to protect the public.