Management Board Briefing
Key points from the Management Board briefing held on the 28th January 2010
Pensions and terms of appointment
No further information on pensions had been received from the sponsor unit and it was understood that they were awaiting the outcome of a House of Lords ruling on a test case.
ESPs
MoJ Internal Audit were to undertake a review of the quality and content of dossiers including ESP cases. Concerns were expressed about the deteriorating state of the dossiers for ESP and Smith and West cases that could lead to more deferrals. Complaints from members had been passed onto the Public Protection Casework Section. It was hoped that the audit would provide outside leverage to get something done.
Counselling services for members
A further meeting had been held with Corporate Support Ltd. Having taken note of the positive comments made by others who had used the service and the reasonable cost, it was considered that the package provided value for money. The meeting supported these views and it was agreed that the service would be launched at the Annual Conference in April.
Indeterminate pre-tariff cases
The new process for pre-tariff cases was due to commence on 1.2.10. There was a backlog of 700 cases which it was anticipated would be cleared by April.
Future status of the Parole Board
The CEO had attended a workshop organised by the Sponsorship Unit to discuss the replies to the consultation exercise. The Tribunal Service and NOMS were represented but not the Courts Service. The Boards response to the consultation paper had not previously been shared with the others attending the meeting. The question was raised of whether issues like tenure arrangements could be taken forward separately in the event of a decision on the future being delayed. It was anticipated that the Chairman and Chief Executive would be invited to meet with the sponsor before the MoJ published their findings.
NAO Report/Public Accounts Committee
Confirmation had been received from the NAO of the scope of the work they wished to undertake before they report back to the Public Accounts Committee in March. Whatever the outcome it was considered unlikely that there would be a PAC hearing before the election.
Members and conflicts of interest
The Performance and Development Committee held the clear view that members should not undertake private work to act as an expert for prisoners during their period of appointment. It was suggested that further legal advice may be necessary. However, after discussion it was agreed that there was a strong case for ensuring that conflicts of interest were avoided wherever possible. The meeting therefore decided that further legal advice was not necessary and that the recommendations in the paper should be endorsed.
Quality of parole reports
The pilot evaluation of PAROM1 reports was presented to the Generic Parole Process Performance Board on 10.12.09. There was initial agreement for a national roll out of the evaluation but NOMS had since retreated from that commitment as they needed to look at the resource implications. The report highlighted serious deficiencies in the quality of parole reports. The CEO was due to see the chair of the GPP Board and would impress on her the importance of the report and the commitment that had been given to have a national evaluation.
Legal Aid: Reforming advocates graduated fees
The meeting considered the comments made by David Mylan and those brought by Michael Purdon Solicitors. It was agreed that the views forwarded by David Mylan should be adopted and sent as the Boards response to the MoJ consultation paper with the additional comment that the Board would not wish to see diminished the right of prisoners to be represented in parole cases.
Fees for IPP chairs
The draft business case to increase the fee for independent members chairing IPP oral hearings had been drafted with input from members. The business case would be put to the sponsor and if accepted would still need to go the Treasury. The meeting approved the business case subject to amendments.
Handling of ESP recall cases
Since June 2009 ESP Recall Annual Review cases had been incorporated into DCR panels. However, this had caused some confusion and a lack of consistency in the way members considered the cases. It was proposed that in future they should be considered by single or two member panels. The broad principle was agreed. However, it was considered that further work was needed on the detail of the proposals.
Joint Review Panel
All agencies involved in the Joint Review Panel had agreed to sign up to a memorandum of understanding about learning points and relevant action to be taken. A final draft of the memorandum would be shared with the Management Board.
Performance Statistics
December and January had been difficult months with 33 cases deferred due to the snow. Further disruption had been caused by the reorganisation of the operational teams. Many of the problems were outside the Boards control. For example 80 late referrals had been received from the Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS) in December despite assurances that this would not happen. Also 75 requests for oral hearings had been found by PPCS in Croydon and would be forwarded to the Board for consideration.
Operations Reviews Team Report
The ICM process was working well in that 28% of cases were resolved on the papers, above the projected figure of 25%. In those cases where prisoners had appealed and their cases referred to an oral hearing, the original decision had been upheld in the vast majority of cases. The backlog of oral hearings was still going up but the number of historic cases was on the way down and each one had been examined to establish a route to hearing.
Finance and Risk Management
Accounts and Forecast
Expenditure was below budget for December by £80k and 969k for the year to date. The deficit on reserves at January 2010 was £302k. However, the Board would draw down sufficient grant-in-aid to finish the year without a deficit on reserves.
The key reasons for the under spend were identified as follows:-
Panel numbers were below budget.
Performance and Development and Quality and Standards had not spent their budgets.
The Board had not spent £100k on casework legal fees as the sponsor had met the cost of independent legal representation.
Fraud report
The Board now had a formal reporting procedure for reporting incidents of fraud and logging these as they occurred. The investigation report included in the papers had been an attempt at procurement fraud but did not result in any loss for the supplier or the Board and had been reported to the police.
Calder Hotel Accommodation
As the MoJ had increased the London hotel rate it was considered appropriate for the Board to do the same. The meeting approved the proposal to increase the London rate and for the outer London rate to remain unchanged. Members would be informed and the Members Handbook updated.
Member recruitment
Judges
There had been an extremely good response to the Chairmans invitation to serving judges to seek appointment to the Parole Board. In all 69 expressions of interest had been received. Interviews had taken place during January and the 19 judges who had been successful had already been appointed as members thanks to a quick response by the Minister. A further 40 judges were due to be interviewed in February with training due in March.
2010 Recruitment Round
The MoJ had chosen Gatenby Sanderson as the recruitment consultants to carry out the 2010 campaign. They would be observing panels so that they improved their understanding of the Boards work.
Equality and Diversity
A meeting of the Equality and Diversity Steering Group had been held that morning. There had been good attendance with some lively discussion. In relation to members, the Steering Group favoured a plenary session at the Annual Conference. Careful consideration was being given to the type of training required. Equality and diversity needed to be threaded throughout the sessions as it impacted on many parts of the Boards work.
Casework Developments
In relation to Pennington it was reported that the court had awarded £1,750 for 3 months delay. An appeal was being considered. In relation to the inquest into the murder of Naomi Brant, Terry McCarthy was due to give evidence in March. It was agreed that the relevant panel members should be informed about the impending inquest.
Health and Safety
The meeting noted the regrettable incident that had taken place at HMP High Down. It was agreed that members should be reminded about the safety advice at hearings given in the Members Handbook.
Annual Conference 2010
A provisional programme had been prepared. Over 100 members had already confirmed their attendance. The newly appointed judges had also been invited. It was not certain how many rooms were available. In view of this it may be necessary for some staff to attend for the day only.
In relation to the question of whether retired members should be invited back, it was considered more relevant when members retired in September and the Conference was held in November. In the circumstances it was decided that an invitation to retired members was not appropriate. It was agreed that there should be an improvement in the way members were treated when they retired.
Staff and Member Engagement Survey 2009
The overall response rate had increased from 60% last year to 66% this time and for staff alone it was 83%. This provided a more accurate picture than last year. Of concern was that the staff results for bullying, harassment and discrimination had jumped from 10% to 17%. A paper had gone to the Equality and Diversity Steering Group and an action plan to address this issue had been agreed.
Casework Management System
The Boards new casework management system was in the process of being developed. The new system would take over from the different databases and spreadsheets currently being used and would provide detailed management information. There had been a slight time slippage but it was still intended to go live by 31.3.10 with a phased roll out. There were 2 open sessions planned and members would be invited to attend.
The Parole Board. Working with others to protect the public.