Policy and guidance
New procedure for handling complaints against members
The new procedure had now been published on the Boards website and would be issued to members in March and included in the next update of the Members Handbook.
A meeting had taken place with representatives from Operation Black Vote to discuss the proposed project aimed at increasing the number of Black and ethnic minority members on the Parole Board. It was intended to hold a seminar to help publicise the initiative. The project would be overseen by a steering group which would include members.
The sponsor body indicated that the Secretary of State would not appeal the Brooke judgment and that sponsorship of the Board would move from NOMS to the Access to Justice part of the MoJ. A Ministerial statement was expected in the near future and members would be consulted after that. It was thought likely that the new sponsor arrangements would work alongside the existing arrangements until the current recruitment round and the PAC hearing had been concluded. It was hoped that the new sponsor would review the position of the new Chair and particularly whether the post should be full-time or part-time.
The meeting agreed the revised draft of the Business Plan for 2008/09 and confirmed that it could now be submitted to the sponsor department for Ministerial approval.
NAO Audit Protecting the Public: the work of the Parole Board:
Publication of the NAO report had been delayed until 5.3.08. Members would be notified as soon as publication had taken place. A date for the PAC hearing had not yet been set but it would be after Easter and possibly as late as the Autumn. The NAO report acknowledged the efforts being made by the Board to meet its targets but recognised that it does not always get the information it needs.
The view was expressed that more specific advice to members about the security of information including, for example, what was an acceptable address for the delivery of dossiers needed to be included and that every effort should be made to ensure that confidential waste was properly handled. In relation to the encryption of laptops, there had been some delay in agreeing arrangements with the MoJ but work had now started. The aim was to have all laptops encrypted by the end of March. This was placing additional pressure on the IT team and Dave Stone, the Boards IT Manger, had decided to leave the Board. Nevertheless every effort would be made to meet the deadline.
It was noted that the Parole Board would come under the Access to Justice Directorate headed by Peter Handcock when the new MoJ reorganisation came into effect.
The meeting agreed that while paper panels continued to be held, London was probably the most accessible location. As part of the relocation review the Board expected to be interviewed about its requirements.
In terms of progress, the two Oral Hearings Team managers had now been appointed and members would be informed. A tender had been accepted to produce the operations manual documentation. It was proposed to digitise dossiers which would help to improve record keeping and reduce the need for storage space. There were proposals to increase the use of video link and examine the feasibility of recording hearings digitally. The system for recording and acknowledging post was unsatisfactory and needed to be completely overhauled. Links with stakeholders was vital and visits had already taken place to 3 prisons with further visits planned.
ICM was already having an impact. It had identified the extent of the late referrals received by the Board. Letters were being sent to prisons if a dossier was late and this had resulted in some prisons submitting dossiers earlier than had previously been the case. Of the 170 negative decisions issued to prisoners, 40% had been accepted which reduced the number of oral hearings required. ICM had also identified for the first time the full size of the oral hearings backlog facing the Board. This currently stood at over 900 cases and included many that had been deferred from last year. The new Parole Board Rules could help to reduce the number of oral hearings by introducing more flexibility about when they should be held and the number of members required on a panel. Unfortunately, policy staff of the sponsor were working on other priorities such as the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill and no guarantee could be given as to when the Rules would be finalised.
An area of concern was the lack of accountability in following up Directions issued by panel chairs. A meeting had taken place with the MoJ but the position still required clarification.
Another issue was the Offender Supervisor report. The MoJ had stated that seconded probation officers would continue to produce the reports or work closely with existing staff in the preparation of the reports until Offender Supervisors had been adequately trained which was expected to be completed by July 2008. However, Offender Supervisor reports were already being included in dossiers. It was decided to examine a sample of cases to determine the quality of the Offender Supervisor reports being received. Another point mentioned was that many of the PARs were being completed by Offender Managers who were not located in the area to which the prisoner was being released.
Most targets were being met. The drop in the number of Smith and West decisions sent out on time was due to the restriction on the transportation of unencrypted laptops as members had to wait until they got back home before sending in their decisions. It was also reported that the MoJ had found another backlog of 400 further review recall cases and this was again placing members and staff under considerable pressure. Maria Eagle MP was due to visit the Board on 5.3.08 and this would be brought to her attention.
It was reported that the result for January 2008 was a planned deficit for the month of £266k and a reduced surplus for the year to date of £15k. The forecast was for £2k. The surplus had reduced from a peak of £347k at October 2007. Income drawn down for January was only £425k. The Board was forecasting drawdown for the year of £7.65m and the drawdowns to effect this had now been approved. The forecast for the year was a surplus of £150k which would reduce the deficit carried forward to 2008/9 to £33k
The Board had received an indication of a budget of £8,360k for 2008/9, an increase of 7%. Although this was £318k less than had been requested, it was seen as a good settlement and had been received before the beginning of the new financial year. In relation to the review of members fees an initial report had been received but contained some inaccuracies and was based on another study for the Senior Salaries Review Board which was the subject of some challenge. The report would therefore need to be revised before it was finalised for discussion by the Management Board.
There was a new case (Pilgrim) which challenged the different tests for release between DCR and lifer prisoners. It was particularly pleasing that the advice given to members in the Walker and James case was upheld in the Appeal Court.
Member Recruitment
It was confirmed that the recruitment of independent members had been postponed until workload projections were clearer. The campaign for judges, psychiatrists and psychologists was going ahead. Martha Blom-Cooper would join the Parole Board as Director of Quality and Standards on 17.4.08.
Membership of the Committee had been discussed with its chair, David Griffiths, and it was proposed to appoint Keith Bassingthwaighte (judge), Paul Courtney (psychiatrist), Heather Morgan and Linda McHugh (independents). The meeting approved the proposal.
It was confirmed that Alan Rayner had agreed to be the member representative on the Parole Board Health and Safety Committee.
Margaret Jewell, the IiP assessor, carried out a planned review of the Board on 11 and 12.2.08 and her subsequent report acknowledged that real progress had been made in attaining the required standard but further work was necessary.
The meeting noted the draft agenda for the Conference and the proposed topics for the workshops. It was agreed that these should be given wider circulation so that members were given the opportunity to put forward their own suggestions.
It was noted that there had been 3 members of staff on long term sick leave during the period covered by the report and although one was now back in work, their absence had impacted on the overall absence rate.
With Tony Pembrookes continued absence through ill health and the resignation of John McNeil from the Parole Board it was agreed that expressions of interest to serve on the Committee should be sought.
March 2008
Grenadier House, 99-105 Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 2DX
Telephone 0845 251 2220
