New FOI Act questions re CEOP and the Home Office

By Tony Bennett: July 2010

Dear Home Office Freedom of Information Section

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000

]copied to Ian Lister for information]

Please answer the following questions under FOI Act:

1. On 19 January 2010, the Daily Telegraph
[ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/active/7028314/Agency-to-find-missing-children-with-Twitter.html ]

quoted the Chief Executive of CEOP, Mr Jim Gamble, as follows:


CEOP’s first responsibilities for missing children would begin “almost immediately” and then gradually evolve, Mr Gamble said, but the name of the agency was unlikely to change because it had built up good public recognition.
Although CEOP would be seeking some extra cash from the Government due to its new responsibilities he said there were also economies of scale associated with bringing missing children inquiries into the agency’s existing responsibilities, he added.

Last week Mr Gamble was quoted in a media release marking 10 years since the abducton and murder of Sara Payne as saying: "We are now also to take responsibility for missing children".

In relation to these 'new reposnsibilities' for missing children' please supply the following information:

a) what legal responsibilties was CEOP given at its inception; please refer to me to any document where these are clearly set out

b) what additional legal responsibilties has it been given since its inception, including any responsibilities for missing children?

c) please state on what dates CEOP was given additional responsibilties for missing children and, on each occasion, what those additional responsibilities were

d) who decides what additional responsibilies are allocated to CEOP? Is there a decision by Parliament on each such occasion? Or does the Home Office Minister decide?

e) please set out precisely what legal powers and responsibilities CEOP currently has in relation to missing children on the date of asking these questions.

2. On 3 May 2010, I asked eight questions of CEOP, in a letter to mr Gamble, in line with their previous statements that, although not obliged to answer FOI Act questions, they would be as open and transparent as possible about their work.

No reply has yet been received to that letter.

Of these eight questions, the Home Office is in a position to answer the following:

1. What legal powers are available to CEOP and its staff?

2. Under what powers can CEOP insist or encourage children, young people and their parents to report alleged crimes to CEOP rather than to their local police force?

3. What action does CEOP take if they have reasonable grounds for believing that an offence against children has been or is being committed; do they investigate and if necessary charge the offender themselves, or do they refer cases to the local police service, or does it depend on the circumstances? If so, what are the criteria for deciding whether a case is investigated by the police or by CEOP?

4. How many staff does CEOP employ?

5. What was the annual cost of CEOP for the last year for which figures are available?

Please kindly answer those five questions.

Yours sincerely
Anthony Bennett

Original thread here: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1190-new-foi-act-questions-re-ceop-and-the-home-office#29380

E-mail sent to CEOP this morning:

To enquiries@ceop.gov.uk

From: ANTHONY BENNETT
Subject: Tony Bennett (Madeleine Foundation) letter to Mr Gamble, CEOP, 3 May 2010
To: enquiries@ceop.gov.uk, press@ceop.gov.uk
Date: Tuesday, 13 July, 2010, 9:55


Attn, Sophie, Support & Development, CEOP

Thank you for having a word with me this morning.

As promised, I attach the letter I sent to Mr Gamble on 3 May.

Mr Gamble has made public pronouncements that he wants CEOP to be as open and transparent as possible.

I have since learnt that CEOP is apparently exempt from the Freesom of Information Act; however I cannot see that answering any of my eight questions in my letter would in any way inhibit CEOP's work. It is a matter of comon courtesy for a publicly-funded body to reply to a letter and answer reasonable questions put to it.

My letter also of course raised very important questions about the close nexus between Mr Gamble, CEOP and the McCanns.

Thank you for agreeing to telephone me back later today when you have found out why I have had no answer yet to my letter.

Yours sincerely

Tony Bennett