Management Board Briefing
Key points from the Management Board briefing held on the 20th November 2008
Parole Board Rules
It was confirmed that the Parole Boards response to the consultation exercise on the Rules would include areas of concern including the failure to cover Smith and West hearings.
Fall in release rates
In relation to researching the reasons for the fall in release rates it was suggested that an exercise to map monthly release rates against significant legislative and other milestones during the last 3 years could form a useful basis for workshop discussion at the annual conference.
Annual Conference 2009
There had been 36 responses to the question of whether the 2009 Annual Conference should be extended from two to three days. 34 were in favour and two against. In the circumstances it was agreed to go ahead with a three day conference and to cancel the development day in spring 2009. Members should be informed accordingly.
Regional Panels
The question of regional panels was being reviewed as part of the overall caseload projections and a proposal would be put to the Management Board when this was completed and the members involved consulted.
ICM outcomes
Further information was to be obtained which showed the outcome of cases that had gone to oral hearing following challenges to negative decisions.
Future status of the Parole Board
Peter Handcock discussed some emerging thoughts about the future of the Parole Board. These would be taken forward as part of the consultation process and the Board would be kept fully informed of progress.
NAO Report/Public Accounts Committee
A co-ordinated response with the MoJ had been sent to the PAC following the receipt of the uncorrected transcript of the evidence. Very few corrections had been necessary. The only outstanding issue was the question raised by one of the PAC members concerning members educational and social background. PBM 36/08 had been issued to members on 14.11.08 requesting this information.
Recall cases under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
The new arrangements for considering recall cases had gone really well and from the cases that had been reviewed it was clear that members were considering cases in an appropriate way and within the terms of the new legal framework. The Management Board agreed the proposed actions relating to obtaining data from the Public Protection Casework Section about estimated caseload projections and also in relation to the arrangements for the continued feedback, review and monitoring of recall cases.
With regard to the recall duty member, it was noted that the service had been provided on a rota basis and was intended to give support to members following the implementation of the new legislation. It was agreed that as the service was now rarely used it could be discontinued from 5.1.09. Members should be informed about the guidance available and what to do if they still needed someone to consult. Members on the duty rota in January and February would be advised about other work which may be available.
Policy on Incomplete Dossiers
The Management Board approved the policy (agreed with the MoJ) that dossiers for indeterminate sentence cases should be returned to prisons if they are found to be missing mandatory documents. It was noted that this had been standard practice in DCR cases for some years.
Security Policy and Manual
A revised paper had been produced taking into account various comments following the previous paper which had been presented to the Management Board in July. Although it was seen as a better version it was decided that there were still some practical issues that needed to be resolved in relation to the security of dossiers. There was some uncertainty about what could be sent by ordinary post and it was agreed that a user guide would be useful to identify what was acceptable. It was also agreed that security definitions should be included in the document. There was also a need for an implementation plan to be prepared before the new policy could be fully adopted.
Reasons Framework
The Reasons Framework had been piloted with 8 judges on oral hearings and 10 DCR panels. An article had also appeared in the October edition of the Board Sheet. Most of the feedback had been positive. The term template had been dropped in favour of framework which it was considered more accurately described the principle behind the policy. During discussion it was confirmed that the actual headings used in the framework document should be included in the reasons. It was agreed that subject to final approval, the new framework would be used in all determinate and indeterminate review cases where members received the dossiers on or after 1.1.09.
Performance
Performance had suffered in October due to the reorganisation of the oral hearings team and it was anticipated that this would also have an impact on Novembers figures. Nevertheless in many areas targets were being met. Concern was raised that the number of cases deferred or adjourned on the day had increased to 20% from 11% the previous month and these would be examined in more detail.
Finance
Expenditure for October was £709k which was £35k above budget and continued the trend of recent months. The forecast for the year was an overall deficit of £402k and this was the amount for which a supplementary bid had been made to the sponsor unit. There had been a meeting with the sponsor about the supplementary bid and the grant-in-aid bid for 2009/10.
The sponsor made it clear that there was considerable pressure on all budgets within the Ministry of Justice and significant savings needed to be made. It was confirmed that the amount requested for 2009/10 was £11.3m plus £3.6m to cover the cost of the members fees review recommendations and £1.5m for legal and compensation costs. The sponsor said that the fees review could not be funded in 2009/10 and would have to be taken forward as part of the discussions on the Boards future status but that compensation costs would be met from MoJ funds. It was made clear to the sponsor that if the Board was not to be given a full settlement, it would be necessary for the MoJ to advise the Board the activities for which funding was being provided.
The Management Board raised concerns that if the fees review was not implemented there could be an impact on the recruitment and retention of members and that the consequences of being unable to consider cases would be significant. It was agreed that a small group should be formed to seek support for the Parole Board to have adequate funding and move to a system of activity based costing.
Member Recruitment
It was confirmed that advertisements for new members should be published in February. A final decision had not been made on the number of members to be recruited but it was clear that a significant number would be needed to tackle the predicted caseload. The sponsor unit had been very helpful in supporting applications being submitted to OCPA for extensions where this was possible. It was also reported that the OBV project was going well with the potential candidates observing panels.
Performance and Development Committee
It was noted that a steering group was looking at the issue of Continuing Professional Development and how it might be used in training.
Equality and Diversity
It was confirmed that Linda McHugh, the Parole Boards Diversity Champion, would launch the new Equality Action Plan on 18.12.08 at an event that would be attended by members, staff and the sponsor unit.
Health and Safety
In relation to stress management and counselling courses for members, checks would be made to see what was available for the judiciary and magistracy. budgetary purposes.
Investors in People
Work was progressing on the IiP action plan and a full report would be put to the January meeting.
Freedom of Information Publication Scheme 2009
It was explained that the Information Commissioners Office had introduced a simplified publication scheme which public authorities were required to adopt. The Boards scheme had therefore been revised to follow the new model but it was not proposed to change the way the Board published information which was mainly through the website.
The Parole Board. Working with others to protect the public.