Policy and guidance
Chris Glenn met with Peter Handcock on 2.6.08 and had again stressed the need for the new or amended Parole Board Rules to be brought in without further delay. He promised that he would do all he could to expedite them. He also advised her that a consultation exercise would take place to determine the Boards most appropriate landing place but the date on which the review would commence had not yet been announced. The Boards Executive Team had since met and decided that a proactive approach was needed to ensure that the Boards views about the future were fully explored and fed into the review. The Management Board decided that it should act as the Programme Board for this exercise and that a workshop should be organised as soon as possible to discuss the issues and recommend the way forward.
Training sessions for the new recall provisions had gone well and most members who were due to undertake the work had now been trained. Arrangements were also in hand to train those members who had been unable to attend any of the June training dates. The current position was noted.
It was reported that a good start had been made in producing an action plan to implement the NAO recommendations and this would be updated regularly. At this stage it was not known when or if the PAC hearing would take place. Nevertheless work would continue in preparing the briefing material.
Several members had responded to the consultation process and their comments were reflected in the paper considered by the meeting. Some members had expressed reservations about single member panels but overall the responses were evenly balanced. After careful consideration the meeting decided that in future all paper recall cases will be considered by Single Member Panels with an option for the single member to consult with the Duty Member in finely balanced or complex cases. The Duty Member would act as a sounding board but would not make it a two member panel. It was agreed that the new policy should come into effect on 14.7.08 which coincided with the implementation of the new recall provisions of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 and members should be notified as soon as possible.
It had proved very difficult to get the report on Members fees finalised and the supplementary work carried out by the consultants in relation to retired judicial members had been rushed. However, the report made several good points and these needed to be taken forward. During discussion the following points were made:
Disappointment was expressed with the proposal that regional paper panels should be discontinued. Not long ago much had been made about the savings that such panels made in terms of travel, overnight accommodation and members time. It was accepted that things had changed but further evidence was requested before a final decision was made. If they were to cease it should be on the basis of sound economic and operational grounds. It was agreed that an evaluation should be carried out and members who regularly attended regional hearings should be consulted about the implications for them.
The meeting agreed with the change in policy outlined in the paper as to when a case will normally be referred for an oral hearing.
A note had been prepared for Peter Handcock stating that the overall backlog of lifer and indeterminate sentence cases was approaching 1,000 and this was of real concern. However, it needed to be placed into context as only 10% were ready to be heard. In 50% of cases the Board had either received no dossier or it was incomplete. Ways needed to be found to tackle the backlog and the view was expressed that there was little value in a judge going to consider a case in a Cat A prison where release was not being considered. It was argued that judges should be used on the most difficult cases where release into the community was being considered.
There had been a good start to the new financial year and most targets were being met. Of concern was the poor performance in sending out dossiers to members on time. It was accepted that it was a tougher target than last year to meet the ICM timetable but should be achievable in the vast majority of cases. This would be investigated. In relation to RARE deferrals, it was pointed out that many of the cases were deferred back to the member and resolved on the papers without the need for a further hearing or additional cost. Consideration would be given to reporting that separately.
The Audit and Risk Management Committee had recommended that as the ICM process was a real innovation it should be put forward for the 2008 Civil Service Awards and this was being pursued.
The accounts showed a deficit of £140k. This was due to drawing down £188k less grant-in-aid than budgeted and would reduce the bank balance. Additional demands for expenditure were developing during the year. The papers included a proposed budget reallocation of £70k for extra costs for the secondee in the Quality Unit and for the part-time accountant to change to full-time.
The meeting noted the paper and in particular the case of Doherty and recommended that this should be highlighted to the members. In the case of Morales it was noted that the Board did not want to adopt a neutral stance should the case proceed.
The meeting was advised that 7 judges, 9 psychiatrists and 1 psychologist had been appointed in the current recruitment round and they would be trained at Ashridge Conference Centre from 11.8.08 to 15.8.08.
The Operation Black Vote Civic Leadership seminar was taking place on 9.7.08 and over 100 delegates were expected. Maria Eagle MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice was also due to attend. It was hoped that the event would lead to more people from Black and Minority Ethnic communities becoming members of the Parole Board. It was unfortunate that there was such uncertainty about projected workloads and the future landing place for the Board as they would impact on recruitment strategy. Nevertheless it was likely that independent members would be recruited in 2009 as a failure to do so in previous years had created problems. A final decision would be made in the Autumn.
It was reported that Peter Wilshaw had been asked to review guidance given to members on security matters following threats made against two members.
Proofs of the Annual Report were being checked and it was anticipated that the accounts would be signed off in the first week of July. It was understood that once again the accounts would receive unqualified certification. The Report was due to be laid before Parliament on 21.7.08 and a stakeholder event had been organised for that day.
The level of sick absence was disappointing. However, it had been affected by the long term absence of four members of staff, two of whom had been off for more than a year. Although advice had been received that their employment could lawfully be terminated, they were both seriously ill and it had been decided that it was right to show them support at what was a difficult time for them and their families.
A pilot was being undertaken to test the sound recording of oral hearings. Equipment had been identified and would be tested over a 3 month period. Members and staff would be kept informed of progress.
Grenadier House, 99-105 Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 2DX
Telephone 0845 251 2220
