Previous Section Index Home Page


5 Mar 2003 : Column 1076W—continued

Probation Service

Dr. Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many vacancies there are for the Inner London Probation Service; and if he will make a statement. [100227]

Hilary Benn: The information requested is as follows:

LondonNumber of vacancies(19)
Senior Probation Officers30
Probation Officers231
Probation Service Officers187
All other staff53
Total501

(19) Figures given as headcount numbers


Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the level of recruitment was, including those starting and leaving, for each Probation Service in England and Wales in (a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [99933]

Hilary Benn: The information requested is as follows.

5 Mar 2003 : Column 1077W

England and Wales    Number of starters and leavers(20)

2001–02
StartersLeavers
Avon and Somerset12069
Bedfordshire2012
Cambridgeshire6928
Cheshire6553
Cumbria2528
Derbyshire10055
Devon and Cornwall5456
Dorset5125
Durham6931
Essex12332
Gloucestershire1730
Hampshire9685
Hertfordshire5150
Humberside10113
Kent6461
Lancashire12593
Leicestershire and Rutland6030
Lincolnshire5721
London194654
Greater Manchester352303
Merseyside4855
Norfolk4941
Northamptonshire3950
Northumbria13986
Nottinghamshire2880
Staffordshire170144
Suffolk4136
Surrey4474
Sussex6832
Teesside6444
Thames Valley140115
. Warwickshire1318
West Mercia6684
West Midlands175184
Wiltshire1013
North Yorkshire2411
South Yorkshire8777
West Yorkshire177125
Dyfed-Powys7124
Gwent6220
North Wales8324
South Wales7647
Total3,4873,113

(20) Figures not currently available for 2002–03

Note:

The level of starters over leavers across the National Probation Service during the financial year 2001–02 showed a growth rate of 2.13 per cent. against the total number of staff in post.

Source:

Figures obtained from RDS Probation Statistics.


5 Mar 2003 : Column 1078W

Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many vacancies by grade there were in each Probation Service in England and Wales on 31st December 2002. [99934]

Hilary Benn: The information requested is as follows:

England and Wales    Numbers of vacancies(21),(22)

Senior probation staffProbation officersProbation service officersTrainee probation officersAll other staff
Avon and Somerset12.015.912.08.6
Bedfordshire2.01.00.5
Cambridgeshire0.51.44.0
Cheshire1.04.01.62.0
Cumbria1.0
Derbyshire0.00.00.00.00.0
Devon and Cornwall2.53.05.0
Dorset1.03.00.50.5
Durham5.6
Essex10.03.85.9
Gloucestershire5.01.01.0
Hampshire3.313.02.06.3
Hertfordshire4.01.06.0
Humberside4.02.02.0
Kent17.342.314.9
Lancashire8.54.52.07.0
Leicestershire and Rutland4.0
Lincolnshire4.58.50.5
London30.0231.0187.053.0
Greater Manchester4.015.035.015.0
Merseyside9.030.0
Norfolk1.05.0
Northamptonshire3.06.05.05.6
Northumbria8.11.5
Nottinghamshire3.05.04.0
Staffordshire6.07.02.0
Suffolk3.06.34.04.5
Surrey2.010.011.58.5
Sussex11.07.49.5
Teesside3.04.0
Thames Valley4.030.516.06.01.7
Warwickshire2.04.0
West Mercia3.01.0
West Midlands5.524.017.021.0
Wiltshire2.05.0
North Yorkshire3.0
South Yorkshire4.8
West Yorkshire3.012.030.041.5
Dyfed-Powys3.82.02.05.5
Gwent8.0
North Wales3.36.03.3
South Wales1.07.811.515.0
Total63.5482.4450.530.0305.6

(21) Figures shown in wte.

(22) Information collected in November 2002.

Notes:

1. To date, the National Probation Directorate (NPD) nor RDS have not routinely collected information on vacancies within the National Probation Service (NPS) and consequently, the information above was collected during November 2002. These are the most recently available figures.

2. Work is currently on-going to implement a National Common Data Set for Workforce Information within the NPS, that will enable the regular collection of this information in the future.

3. Figures for London are given as number of posts, not Full-Time Equivalents.

4. This number of vacancies represents a percentage of around 8 per cent. over the total National Probation Service staffing level of 15,789 (taken from RDS Probation Statistics 2001).


5 Mar 2003 : Column 1079W

John Redgrave

Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) consequent upon the withdrawal of the members of the Metropolitan Police panel formed to consider the case of John Redgrave, what consultation was extended to John Redgrave's counsel prior to a new date for the hearing being scheduled; [99696]

Mr. Denham [holding answer 27 February 2003]: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that dates for prospective hearings were set after full consultation with Counsel for DI Redgrave.

The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that two of the Discipline Board members stood down on Tuesday 11 February following submissions of possible lack of impartiality by defence Counsel acting on behalf of the other officer facing disciplinary proceedings. I am further informed that DI Redgrave's Counsel was present throughout these proceedings.

5 Mar 2003 : Column 1080W

The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that during the course of the submissions that preceded two of the Discipline Board members standing down Counsel for DI Redgrave stated that he was, "...decidedly neutral".

The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that contact with DI Redgrave and his Counsel was made normally through DI Redgrave's solicitors. To that end, solicitors representing DI Redgrave were initially contacted by telephone at lunchtime on the day that members of the Discipline Board withdrew and were informed that efforts were being made to convene a new Board. DI Redgrave's solicitors were further contacted by telephone in an attempt to re-convene the hearing within the originally scheduled period of four weeks, which had been set aside for the hearing. However, when that proved not possible, on 20 February 2003, letters were faxed to solicitors acting on behalf of DI Redgrave and the other officer involved in the proceedings urgently seeking available dates for a hearing, between that date and 1 June 2003.

Matters related to the conduct of disciplinary proceedings are the responsibility of chief officers. The Secretary of State has no authority to intervene in such matters.


Next Section Index Home Page