Policy and guidance
It was noted that arrangements had been put in place to monitor the new recall process which came into effect on 14.7.08. An update report would be provided to the November meeting.
It was agreed that the members of the Management Board should continue until such time as the interim Chair was in post and corporate governance arrangements reviewed. The other proposals in the paper were also agreed including the recommendation to invite applications from the membership to join the Performance and Development Committee to replace two members who were due to leave. It was agreed that the two members should remain on the Committee until their successors had been appointed. A strategy was being developed for taking forward the Quality Agenda and part of that would consider whether the Quality and Standards Committee should be reconvened.
It was reported that the Executive Team/Management Board workshop held on 10.7.08 had proved very useful and had provoked much discussion. The overall feeling was that a Tribunal status would not be appropriate for the Parole Board. The new tiering system referred to in the Senior President of Tribunals review and the prospect of members sitting on several different types of Tribunal meant that the specialist and unique nature of the Board could be lost. The preferred option was to become a court but to retain key attributes such as appraisal, accreditation and mentoring. It was agreed that there needed to be similar workshops for members and staff and that they should continue to receive updates in the Board Sheet.
The House of Commons Justice Committee Report entitled Towards Effective Sentencing issued on 22.7.08 was welcomed particularly in view of the forthcoming PAC hearing. Chris Glenn was complimented by the meeting for the highly effective and well prepared evidence that she had given to the Committee.
NAO Report/Public Accounts Committee
Confirmation was given that there would be a Public Accounts Committee hearing on 27.10.08 to discuss the NAO report Protecting the public: the work of the Parole Board. Chris Glenn had been invited to give evidence. Work had already started on briefing material and a planning meeting had been arranged for 8.8.08 with Pat Lloyd, temporary Head of the Sponsorship and Performance Unit.
It was not known what had prompted the questions from Chris Huhne MP but they did highlight the huge increase in cases considered by the Board and what had been achieved over recent years. In the light of the MPs interest he had been invited to observe a panel.
The paper put to the meeting explained that five members had approached the Board seeking extensions to their term of appointment. Two of the members joined the Board in 2000 and had been re-appointed for 3 years in 2005 following open competition. The other three members had joined in 2001 and had received extensions to December 2008 but had not re-applied in open competition. During discussion it was proposed that the decision about whether to support the requests should be based on the Boards needs and on that basis it could be argued that all five members were needed. However, it was pointed out that any decision should be based on fairness to all members. The practice of extending members for one year was well established and that would apply to two of the members. However, if further extensions were granted to the other three members, it would mean that by the time they left the Board they would have served an additional 27 months. It was considered that this period was too long without going through open competition. It was therefore agreed only to support the requests by the two members and a business case would be put to the Sponsorship and Performance Unit who would need to consult OCPA. Letters would be written to all the members concerned advising them of the Management Boards decision.
A revised report had been produced by the consultants which was an improvement on the previous draft. However, further work was necessary before it was ready for wider circulation.
It was reported that there had been a serious breach of security with a members unencrypted USB memory stick being found outside HMP Styal. Fortunately it was handed to the duty Governor who acted responsibly by advising the Board and keeping the USB in his safe. The Governor said that he had been able to access the data on the stick and it contained information about individual prisoners. He was also able to identify the member to whom it belonged. The member had since been contacted and had apologised. The incident had highlighted the serious implications of what could arise if basic security measures were not followed. The USB could easily have ended up in the wrong hands and it could have been extremely damaging and embarrassing for the Board. Concern was expressed that some members did not take the issue seriously enough. The Management Board agreed and it was decided that a reminder needed to be sent to members without delay.
In relation to the draft Security Policy and Manual, the general view was that it was a good start but that it needed to be linked with the work that Peter Grant was carrying out as part of his role as Senior Risk Information Officer. It was also considered that the section relating to the security of members when visiting prisons needed to be strengthened. Concerns were expressed about the couriers currently being used by the Board as a dossier had been left on a doorstep while the member was away and this was being investigated.
The seminar on 9.7.08 jointly organised by OBV and the Parole Board had exceeded expectations. 48 delegates had expressed an interest in becoming Parole Board members and it was hoped that this would lead to an increase in the number of BME members on the Board. Arrangements were being made for some of those interested to observe oral and paper hearings.
The meeting found the ICM update very helpful. Concern was expressed about the backlog of cases particularly as the number ready for oral hearing was steadily increasing.
The meeting noted that the overall performance against business plan objectives was good.
It was reported that the accounts for June 2008 showed expenditure for the first quarter as being under budget by 64k. A different trend in the Boards finances was indicated by the accounts compared to the first two months of the year. The earlier accounts showed expenditure well under budget. The three month accounts show expenditure at £700k a month which is in line with spending the full grant-in-aid of £8,360k. The casework indications were that recall volumes were above budget and DCR in line. The number of Oral Hearings was increasing as ICM made an impact. The financial planning for the proposed new staff structure was based on similar case work expenditure during the rest of the year.
It was explained that the revised staff structure was necessary as staff levels had not kept pace with case load levels which had risen for several successive years. It was difficult to make future financial projections so early in the year and it was clear that there was a need to manage finances carefully to keep the Board out of deficit whilst increasing staff levels. The workings for the staff restructure assumed maintained trends on other expenditure and a revised IT arrangement. It was evident that there was a considerable need for the increased resources proposed. The average monthly cost of the proposal was £2k above the present level of cost.
The paper on Judicial Reviews was noted.
Arrangements were being finalised for New Member Training at Ashridge Conference Centre from 11.8.08 to 15.8.08. A request was made for the biogs of the new members to be circulated to all members and staff.
A monitoring process was being introduced to examine decisions and it was proposed to open this up to retired members providing they had left the Board within the past 2 years which was the same criterion as appraisers. The meeting agreed to the proposal.
It was noted that a team building day for staff had been organised for 3.10.08 at Barnett Hill in Guildford and a sporting celebrity had agreed to attend. Further work was, however, necessary to ensure that the Board met the new IiP standards. An updated report would be provided at the next meeting.
A consultation paper published in June by the MoJ entitled Titan prisons invited comments from the Parole Board amongst others. It was agreed that it would be inappropriate for the Board to comment on the strategy behind building Titan prisons. However, it was agreed to respond saying that if such prisons were to be built they should include purpose built suites for Parole Board oral hearings, facilities for witnesses and dedicated video-link equipment.
Grenadier House, 99-105 Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 2DX
Telephone 0845 251 2220
