Policy and guidance
The meeting noted that the procedure for handling complaints against members was being finalised.
A project with Operation Black Vote was planned with the aim of increasing the number of Black and minority ethnic members on the Parole Board.
A letter from the Ministry of Justice dated 31.12.07 was noted and the assurance welcomed that it would be a matter for the new chair and the Management Board to review structure, senior roles and governance issues within the Parole Board.
A meeting with Paul Larsmon of ITN had taken place to discuss the basic outline for the video and this was being taken forward.
It was reported that the sponsor department was moving towards a policy of recruiting members for a six year period in line with the Brooke judgment. Normally this would be welcomed. However, with such uncertainty about workload, a much more flexible approach was needed. It was anticipated that independent members joining the Board would work 2 days per week but that could not be guaranteed particularly as the proposed 28 day fixed term recall could result in 3,000 less cases and the DCR caseload was also expected to reduce. It was agreed that the most sensible course of action would be to recommend to the sponsor department that the recruitment of independent members should be postponed until the position becomes clearer. However, the recruitment campaign for judicial, psychiatrist and psychologist members should continue.
A detailed paper had been considered by the Executive Team at their meeting on 8.1.08 and agreed a number of measures to strengthen the security of data. However, since then Sir Gus ODonnell, the Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service, had ruled that no government laptops should be transported unless they were encrypted. The meeting noted the paper and the progress made but agreed that it was essential that members and staff were informed at the earliest opportunity about the ruling from the Cabinet Secretary. It was recognised that this would have a considerable impact on members who use their laptops when travelling, at oral hearings or regional panels. However, it was agreed that there was no alternative and every effort should be made to get the laptops encrypted at the earliest opportunity.
The meeting agreed to the policy change that all EPP parole applicants under the age of 18 should be referred immediately by the paper hearings team for an oral hearing.
The meeting noted that historically judicial review costs against the Board were paid for by the Prison Service and that this arrangement was now under review.
The project to replace the Boards Race Action Plan with an Equality Action Plan was noted.
The Brooke judgment was expected to be handed down in early February. The detail would need to be carefully considered to determine what impact it would have on the future of the Board. It was intended to discuss the options in plenary sessions at Conference.
It was noted that work on the C-NOMIS project to replace the inmate information computer system (IIS) was to be resumed. To reduce costs the Probation Service was no longer to be included but the exact scope was still not known.
A business planning meeting had been held in the morning attended by some members of the Management Board and Executive Team. It had been a very productive session which took into account the emerging findings from the NAO review. A revised plan would be produced for final clearance at the next meeting.
The Chairman and CEO had attended the Quarterly strategy meeting with the MoJ and were disappointed to learn that only now were the MoJ moving to tackle delays even though the Chair he had written some months ago calling for action to be taken in advance of the NAO review. It was encouraging that the Boards ICM initiative had begun with a stakeholders day and visits to prisons.
It was reported that an e-mail had been received from a member who had attended an oral hearing where the case had been subject to ICM and found that the dossier was complete, directions complied with and all witnesses attended. As sufficient notice had been given it allowed for a replacement psychologist to attend due to the unavailability of the original psychologist. Another e-mail had been received praising the presentation given at the ICM stakeholder day held on 18.1.08 and in the way the whole event was organised. An ICM member forum had also been very positive and had led to some refining of the process. Progress was pleasing but concern remained about the backlog of cases which had now been identified and needed to be heard.
The ICM statistics showed that there had been 145 late referrals from prisons. This made it very difficult to cope with the caseload. There were also problems in ensuring that staff considered cases in a consistent manner and that there was equality in the number of cases handled by the case managers. Two additional oral hearings team managers were being recruited with the task of improving the efficiency of the process.
Peter Grant gave a presentation on the challenges facing the oral hearings team with the introduction of ICM and the steps that were being taken to improve performance both internally and externally including visits to prisons with a member. Looking ahead he identified that better IT, post tracking and the digitisation of dossiers were all objectives that could raise overall performance levels.
It was reported that the accounts showed a surplus for the year to date of £281k. The grant-in-aid drawn down for January was only £425,000 which was expected to lead to a loss of £200k reducing the Boards surplus at the end of January to around £80k. NOMS had indicated that they would not take budget away from the Board this year. In view of this the Board would be able to draw down appropriate grant in aid to achieve a suitable surplus. It was agreed that consideration should be given to using the surplus to reduce the balance sheet deficit.
There were considerable difficulties in making a budget bid for 2008/9 in view of the uncertainty of case load levels, the effect of Executive Recall and other legislative changes and the cost of taking over compensation claims. The problems were appreciated but it was considered important to show where savings could be made through ICM and the new Parole Board Rules. It was agreed that a revised budget should be produced with identified efficiencies and savings.
The JR update was noted and in particular the new case of Pilgrim which challenged the different tests for release between DCR and lifer prisoners.
It was reported that Ministerial approval had been given for the appointment of Martha Blom-Cooper as the new Director of Quality and Standards. It was now a matter for the Ministry of Justice to confirm the terms of appointment. Interviews for the new Chair had taken place and the result was awaited.
The report was noted and that learning points would appear in the next edition of the Board Sheet.
There had been an amendment to the paper in that the new police representative on the Panel was now Keith Bristow, Chief Constable for Warwickshire.
The inaugural meeting of the Parole Board Health and Safety Committee was held on 18.12.07. PBM 1/08 had been issued on 10.1.08 seeking expressions of interest for a member representative but none had been received. It was decided that a direct approach should be made to any members who had a health and safety background. The meeting approved the terms of reference for the Health and Safety Committee and also the revised Health and Safety Policy Statement.
A detailed action plan was in place and progress continued to be made. The IiP assessor was due to visit the Board on 11 and 12.2.08 to interview staff as part of the re-accreditation process.
Grenadier House, 99-105 Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 2DX
Telephone 0845 251 2220
