Management Board Briefing
Key points from the Management Board briefing held on the 30th July 2009
Matters arising
A submission had been sent to the Minister about the proposal that the appointment of judges should not be subject to OCPA rules. The matter had been submitted to the Cabinet Office for approval and a response was awaited. In relation to fees, the 2.1% uplift had been approved and would be backdated to 1.4.09. The proposed increase for retired judges had been submitted to the Treasury for approval.
The proposal for serving judges to have 2 reading days for every 3 sitting days was being introduced for panels from October 2009.
In relation to tenure, any change would have to wait for the outcome of the consultation exercise on the future of the Board. The question of tenure was included in the consultation document and would provide the opportunity for members to comment.
The Future of the Parole Board MOJ Consultation document
The consultation document on the future of the Parole Board had been issued by the MOJ on 20.7.09. The Board would submit a formal response that had been cleared by the Management Board and reflected arguments expressed by members and staff following consultation with them. Members and staff would also be entitled to submit their own views direct to the MOJ.
Membership of the Management Board and its Committees
It was not known how long the Committees would continue as the structure of the Board could change in the light of the consultation about the future. It was agreed that the process of fulfilling vacancies should continue subject to a review after the consultation exercise had been completed. It was also agreed that it would be simpler if all posts across the committees ran to September of the relevant year.
There would be one vacancy on the Management Board from September. There would also be a vacancy as chair of the Audit and Risk Management Committee and two members of the Performance and Development Committee.
The meeting noted the proposal for a Quality and Standards Reference Group to be established. The meeting also noted that the Review Committee was currently looking at its structure and membership. A paper would be put to the Management Board in September.
Victim participation at hearings
The Procedural Guidance Committee had considered all the comments received in the consultation exercise and the draft practice guide reflected the comments received.
The guide gave advice about the role of the victim at hearings and it was important to emphasise that the victim was not a party or a witness to the hearing. Late challenges had been made to victim statements, however, if the statement was issued on time and appropriate directions made there were no grounds for deferring the hearing.
The meeting agreed a proposed increase in the advance time that the statement should be lodged with the Board from 14 to 28 days. That would allow time for any objection made by the prisoner to be considered.
Disclosure of panel members notes under FOI
Legal advice had recently been sought in relation to panel members handwritten notes and this stated that they were exempt from disclosure. This was in contrast to current policy. The meeting was content with the legal advice from Treasury Solicitors and agreed to the change in policy and an amendment to the Members Handbook.
Annual Report and Accounts 2008/09 Business Plan 2009/10
The Annual Report was launched with a stakeholder meeting at Church House on 20.7.09. The event was organised on an interactive basis and included discussion on the future of the Parole Board as the consultation document was issued on the same day. The feedback received was very useful.
Performance and statistics
Poor performance in relation to Generic Parole Process targets underlined the lack of judicial resources to hear cases. There had been some improvement in sending out decisions on time and this needed to continue.
The June backlog was 1,834 cases. This was down from 1,904 in May. Members and staff were praised for the number of cases considered. Nevertheless, the said the backlog was horrendous and it was hoped that the new IPP chairs would start to have a bigger impact on reducing overall numbers from September
The Re4Re team was under pressure and additional resources had been put in to help administratively. Once again it was mainly a question of insufficient member resources to tackle the number of cases that needed to be heard although exacerbated in this instance by the late submission of dossiers from PPCS.
Intensive case Management Paper Decision Analysis
The paper included the oral hearing outcome of cases where the paper decision had been appealed. The results gave some assurance in the way cases were considered. It was agreed that feedback should be given to the ICM member in cases where their decision is not upheld at oral hearing.
Financial update 2009/10
The accounts showed expenditure under budget by £211k. This was after re-phasing the timing of budgeted oral hearing costs to reflect the forecast number of panels throughout the rest of the year. Based on the new phasing the Boards funding for 3 member oral hearings would be exhausted in February 2010. The funding for 2009/10 provides for 1,966 panels and the Board was now projecting 2,230 panels. The sponsorship unit were aware of the projected increase and had advised that funding would be provided for the additional panels. Staff costs were in line with the budget forecast.
Judicial Reviews
The decision of the House of Lords about the use of special advocates related to a case where an individual was subject to a detention order. This was different to considering the release on parole of convicted prisoners when issues relating to risk of harm had to be taken into account. The Boards policy on the use of special advocates should not be changed unless the House of Lords rules otherwise.
The Betteridge judgment had been particularly helpful in acknowledging the problems faced by the Board and effectively stopping queue jumping by prisoners. However, it did not mean that the Board was not in breach of Article 5(4).
Recruitment/Membership 2009/10
A breakdown was provided of the new members joining the Board, those who had been re-appointed or received extensions and those who had left or were due to leave the Board. It also provided results from the Operation Black Vote project.
It was noted that only 7% of applicants got through the sift. This process involved representatives from the Board (including specialist members), the sponsor and the recruitment consultants.
Disappointment was expressed that although 4 OBV candidates got through to the assessment stage none was appointed. Nevertheless, the number of BME candidates who were appointed was encouraging. The OBV project had raised awareness and this may have had a ripple effect in getting BME candidates to apply.
The sponsor had been asked to provide a complete breakdown of the Parole Board membership by gender, ethnicity, age range and disability at 1.10.09.
Minutes of the Performance and Development meeting held on 3.7.09
Informal feedback from the Annual Conference was mixed, with some sessions considered stronger than others. The views of members from last years conference had been taken into account when planning this years event to get the right balance between plenary and break out sessions.
Health and Safety
A health and safety audit had taken place on 10.6.09. The report showed that the Board was performing well in most areas. However, greater awareness among staff was necessary. Account also needed to be taken of members and staff travelling by car to prisons and attending hearings in prison. An action plan would be produced.
There were concerns over the safety of members following an incident at HMP Garth. The initial response from the prison was not helpful but a reply had now been received which gave some confidence that the prison was taking the safety of members seriously.
Vote of Thanks
Sarah Lightfoot was thanked her for her hard work and the important contribution that she had made over the past 6 years and was wished well for the future. The meeting showed their appreciation with a round of applause.
The Parole Board. Working with others to protect the public.