Management Board Briefing
Key points from the Management Board briefing held on the 29th October 2009
The Future of the Parole Board
The round of consultation meetings with members and staff had been concluded and it was important that the draft response represented the views that had been expressed. These were:
Q1. There was a strong feeling that the Board should have more enforceable powers.
Q2. There should be a formal appeals procedure.
Q3. For reasons of independence there should not be a direct link with the Ministry of Justice.
Q4 Courts provided direct access to judges whereas tribunals had indirect access.
Q5 Appointments should be made by the Parole Board with independent oversight.
Q6 The majority of members were in favour of 5 + 5 years tenure.
Q7 The Board should be sponsored by HMCS rather than become fully integrated into the Court Service.
Q8 The work of the Board was compatible with both courts and tribunals but significantly more members favoured a link with the courts.
The only area where there had been a significant difference from the original draft was the view that the Board should be an NDPB sponsored by HMCS rather than become a court itself. There had also been feedback from staff with their concerns about the possible impact on jobs and conditions of service. The meeting agreed with the overall structure, focus and content of the response.
NAO Report/Public Accounts Committee
A meeting with the NAO on 22.10.09 had been very constructive. It was clear that the NAO recognised the efforts that were being made to improve the parole process but recognised that more work was necessary. However, they would be seeking proof of progress from both the Parole Board and the PPCS as part of their evidence gathering before reporting to the PAC by 17.3.10. The NAO were made fully aware that the lack of sufficient judges had resulted in significant delays in oral hearings taking place.
Report on meeting with MPs
The Chairman had met recently with Dominic Grieve MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, Edward Garnier MP, Shadow Attorney General and Alan Duncan MP, Shadow Minister for Prisons to raise awareness of the consultation exercise on the future of the Parole Board. He also intended to meet with Labour peer Lord Corbett and Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne MP. It was important for all political parties to engage in the debate about the Boards future.
Judge time and fees
The policy of serving judges having 2 days preparation for 3 days sitting had now been implemented. However, the issue relating to fees had not yet been resolved. The sponsor had agreed in principle that retired judges should be paid the equivalent rate paid by similar organisations but it was understood that a submission to the Justice Secretary was still required..
6.4
Stats Folder
The Stats Folder provided details of the first 6 months of the current financial year. It showed that the number of lifer oral hearings had gone down but for IPPs there had been a significant increase. Overall the number of 3 member oral hearings had risen by nearly 16% compared with the same period last year. There had been a reduction in the number of on the day deferrals and adjournments. The number of challenges considered by the Post-Panel Team had increased.
Quarter 2 Report to sponsor
Performance against the GPP targets was poor. However, the Board was at the end of the link and delays elsewhere in the system contributed to the results. However, even if all reports and dossiers were received on time, many of the cases could not be heard due to lack of judges. This was very frustrating as the Board had the funding in place in the current year to hear the cases.
Accounts 2009/10
The accounts showed expenditure below budget by £446k. The sponsor had been informed that the Board wished to draw down sufficient grant-in-aid to clear the brought forward deficit of £176k. The key issue in the September accounts was that there were 45 panels less than budgeted.
Forecast for 2009/10
The forecast was for expenditure to be £256k below budget and £380k less than the approved grant-in-aid for the year. The availability of chairs continued to be a constraint on the number of three member oral panels. There was greater uncertainty than usual about the forecast outcome as it was not known when the projected increase in judicial resource would be realised.
Fees for Oral Hearings
The meeting approved the proposals in Paper MB 97-09. In relation to the fee adjustment for cancelled hearings, it was agreed that this should be implemented from 1.11.09.
Recruitment
There had been 72 applications for the Director of Performance and Development post. 12 applicants were chosen for the assessment centre and of those 5 were subsequently invited for interview. A candidate had been chosen and it was now a matter for the MOJ to make a submission to the Minister and carry out reference checks.
Stakeholder Engagement Survey
Progress had been made since the stakeholder engagement audit in October 2008. The meeting noted the progress and also reviewed the draft stakeholder engagement survey due to be issued in Novem
The Parole Board. Working with others to protect the public.