|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people who transferred to the Serious and Organised Crime Agency as sworn constables have since left the agency in each month since its inception; and what proportion of (a) sworn constables and (b) all staff this represents. 
Jacqui Smith: Since 1 April 2006, 231 sworn constables have left SOCA. This number includes 58 retirements and 35 who remained as secondees on transfer to SOCA and who have since returned to their home force on conclusion of their secondment. In addition, some former police officers who resigned from SOCA at the end of their 30 years' service have rejoined the organisation, including in the most recent recruitment process.
|Excluding seconded police officers returning to force|
|Month left||Numbers of former police officers directly employed at 1 April 20 06 leaving each month (including retirements)||Number leaving as a percentage of former police officers directly employed at start||Number leaving as a percentage of total direct employees at start|
|Including seconded police officers returned to force|
|Numbers of former police officers directly employed or transferred on secondment at 1 April 2006, leaving each month||Number leaving as a percentage of former police officers at start||Number leaving as a percentage of total direct employees at start|
|Analysis of ex police officer leaving reasons|
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases involving alleged abuse of intrusive surveillance powers by (a) local councils and (b) central Government-controlled bodies were investigated by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in each year since it was established; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Coaker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by the then Minister of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on 22 July 2008, Official Report, column 1374W. It is not the Investigatory Powers Tribunal's practice to publish detailed breakdowns by type or body of complaint, in order to preserve the confidence of people using it that their complaint will be handled confidentially. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal is independent of Government and subject to statutory rules which prevent it from disclosing information to an extent, or in a manner, that is contrary to the public interest. Only law enforcement and intelligences agencies and certain detention authorities can conduct intrusive surveillance under the Regulation of Investigatory Act 2000, but any valid complaint would be investigated by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps for redress are available to people who believe they have suffered from an abuse of intrusive surveillance powers by (a) local authorities and (b) central Government-controlled bodies; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Coaker [holding answer 13 October 2008]: Under section 65 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal is the responsible body for any complaint about public authority conduct under the Act. If it determines that there has been a contravention of the Act, it is required to notify the complainant and in certain circumstances make a report to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It may, if appropriate, quash any warrant or authorisation, order the destruction of relevant material and award compensation or make any other order as they think fit.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|