Policy and guidance
The first part of the meeting was taken up with a presentation by Paul Hindson from the NOMS Offender Management Team, on the Strategic Review of Offender Management. The presentation covered the purpose of the Review, its main findings and key recommendations.
The main part of the meeting commenced at 2.40pm.
It was agreed that expressions of interest should now be sought for membership of the Management Board, the Audit and Risk Management Committee and also the Operation Black Vote steering group.
It was reported that the Boards new sponsor from 1.4.08 would be the Access to Justice Group of the Ministry of Justice and that its Director General, Peter Handcock, had indicated his support for the Parole Board being a court rather than a tribunal. Options would be put to Ministers, who would make the final decision. Peter Handcock had also agreed to make some operational and corporate shared services accessible to the Parole Board.
The views of judges had been sought about the time they spend on cases and the reason why there was disparity between the Board and the courts about the number of recorded sitting days. Responses highlighted that judges were often working evenings and at weekends to get cases completed. In addition account was not taken of the time spent by judges travelling to hearings or attending the Annual Conference and other Parole Board events. Although judges liked the work, it was time consuming and only retired judges got paid. Concern was raised that it may become more difficult to attract working judges if the time commitment issue was not addressed. Two alternatives were identified. The first was to increase the number of judges on the Board. However, as judges had to have a murder or rape or attempted rape ticket, the number available was limited. The second was to increase the number of sitting days. Clearly 15 days was not enough but some of the circuits were short of judges. Although the new Parole Board Rules (when published) and ICM would help, the number of oral hearings requiring a judicial chair remained higher than the amount of judge time available. After discussion it was agreed that the matter should be discussed at Conference with a view to canvassing ideas on how the problem should be tackled. A response would then be sent to the Senior Presiding Judge with a proposed policy that clarified the terms of appointment. It was also agreed that the appointment should be on the basis that for each sitting day of 2 cases on average, there should be one day of preparation. Linda McHugh asked if more retired judges could be persuaded to apply. It was pointed out that the level of fees paid to retired judges fell below that offered by other bodies and this would be looked at as part of the review of members fees.
A quality assurance process was being developed to evaluate ICM so that there was a consistency of approach. A number of ICM Directions had been reviewed and found that members were not making unreasonable requests for psychiatric or psychologist reports. In relation to deferrals, ICM had helped to reduce them but some members continued to defer cases even though they had been through the ICM process. Further advice on ICM would be given during workshops at Conference. Information was requested on the number of negative decisions which were rejected by the prisoner and subsequently went to an oral hearing which decided to release.
The meeting noted the efforts made by members and staff to deal with the backlog of 400 recall cases received from the Ministry of Justice. It was also noted that the number of DCR cases had declined which had resulted in the need to cancel some panels. Members affected had been advised and an article would appear in the next Board Sheet.
In February there was a surplus of £85k and a surplus for the year to date of £105k. Members fees and travel in February were £50k below forecast and the contingency of £10k for February was unused. The estimated expenditure for 2007/08 had been revised down to £7,350k. Grant-in-aid of £150k was repaid to the Ministry of Justice on 26.3.08. This reduced the Boards income for the year from £7,650k to £7,500k and would result in a surplus of £150k which would be sufficient to reduce the Boards reserves deficit to £34k. Mention was made that the hotel allowance limits were to be reviewed in view of increases in the cost of hotel accommodation.
It was noted that there had been several applications from psychiatrists and psychologists in the current recruitment round. Claire Barkley had handed out flyers at a recent conference for psychiatrists and this had clearly helped raise awareness. A decision was still awaited from the sponsor about extending some of the current members by a further 12 months.
It was noted that the next meeting of the Boards Health and Safety Committee was due to take place on 31.3.08.
A revised plan action plan was awaiting approval by the IiP assessor.
The arrangements for the 2008 Conference were confirmed. In relation to the 2009 Conference, the meeting agreed with the recommendation that Blackpool should be the venue.
It was confirmed that the NAO report had been published on 5.3.08 and it was anticipated that the Chief Executive and the MoJ Permanent Secretary would appear before the Public Accounts Committee later in the year.
Grenadier House, 99-105 Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 2DX
Telephone 0845 251 2220
