Speeches by Munt.

“It would be very interesting to know what the figures were on that as well, as I think that is sliding in the wrong way. It must be right that the victim is considered. I will not go on too much longer, but I wanted to ask a question about the Parole Board’s ability to meet the additional cost of victim attendance. Wil…”

“The transparency review recommended that the Parole Board decision summaries are replaced by redacted, fully reasoned decisions, as “circumstances have changed and a different approach is now required.” Do you accept that this change in approach has to come about?”

“Is that just the recent SDS—the 40% ones?”

“I am Tessa Munt, the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills in Somerset. Everything is on the register, but I will just point out that I am a vice-chair of the APPG on penal affairs and of WhistleblowersUK, which is a non-profit organisation.”

“The role of the Parole Board might be misunderstood by the public. If possible, could you please outline that role and explain the typical process for a Parole Board review, from the initial referral to a final decision?”

“Yes, it would be interesting from the public’s point of view. They would want to understand the key factors that you consider in your process.”

“I would like to better understand the process for making recommendations to the Secretary of State for a move to open conditions.”

“How often does the Parole Board review its own decisions, whether they have been right or not, depending on what happened in the future? Does that happen? Do you regularly look at what has happened in the way of recommendations over the last three or six months?”

“I wondered about the slightly lower level, as reoffending is such a serious problem, as I understand it. I understand why you have a process in place for looking at serious further offending, but there is the slightly less serious, but still serious, issue of further offending and people coming back into the system so …”

“Increasing transparency has been a significant focus for your board since 2018. What does transparency mean in the context of the board’s work, and what do you currently do to promote it?”

“Yes, I was going to ask you about that. Is that the Rook Topolski review?”

“What did that review reveal?”

“Do you feel that victims in particular have an understanding of your decision-making process? You have referred, perhaps obliquely, to the fact that they might be a group who do not.”

“The rules were changed in 2022 so that the chair could determine that a hearing could be held in public, but I think I am right in saying that only nine hearings have been granted, whereas 39 have been refused. Are those figures correct?”

“That would be interesting. If you could write to the Chair, that would be good. Can I just take you back a bit? You had six that were heard, and another two—what happened to them?”

“So 39 have been refused—that is quite a weight on one side, is it not? It does not seem as if the new rules have kicked in hugely, or am I being very unfair?”

“What is stopping that?”

“Can you not see a future—because clearly Topolski did—that is very different from nine and 39? Well, maybe we should say six minus two plus one and 39. There must be a way. We manage it in court.”

“I could not agree more; that might help us to understand the interaction between behaviour and authority.”

“I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of ADHD on rehabilitation and reoffending in the prison system. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I think we all accept that our prison system faces significant challenges, including poor rehabilitation, high reoffending rates, overcrowd…”