Tag: Sarah Wollaston

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sarah Wollaston on 2016-01-06.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for how long people under the age of 18 who were transferred to a place of safety under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 were detained on average in (a) a police cell and (b) a police vehicle in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years.

Mike Penning

The information requested is not held centrally.

However, the use of police cells as a place of safety for all persons detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 has more than halved since 2011/12 (when figures were first collated) as shown in the following table. A joint inspection by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC); Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP); the Care Quality Commission (CQC); and Healthcare Inspectorate Wales (HIW) (published in 2013) found that the average time that each such person spent in police custody was 10 hours 32 minutes.

The Government intends to make provision in the Policing and Crime Bill, to be introduced in Parliament soon, to prohibit the use of police cells as places of safety for people under the age of 18, and to further limit their use in the case of adults. The maximum period for which a person may be detained pending a mental health assessment will also be reduced.

Table 1: number of times a police station was used as a place of safety for people detained under Section 136 Mental Health Act 1983 (England only)

Year	Section 136 detentions in police stations	Percentage reduction year on year (to nearest whole number)
2011-12	8,667	N/A[1]
2012-13	7,881	-9%
2013-14	6,028	-24%
2014-15	3,996	-34%

Source: Health and Social Care Information Centre

[1] No data on use of police stations is available for 2010-11.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sarah Wollaston on 2016-04-11.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, whether regulations are in place to ensure that (a) town councils, (b) parish councils and (c) local communities receive regular updates from highways authorities about (i) the sum total for Section 106 contributions for highways infrastructure works promised and delivered within their areas each year and (ii) a breakdown of expenditure on individual works within their areas.

Brandon Lewis

Section 106 agreements are negotiated and agreed between a local planning authority and a developer and/or landowner along with other interested parties in the land, such as mortgage providers. National planning policy makes clear that Section 106 requirements, modifications and discharges should be transparent and available for inspection.

Local planning authorities are expected to use all of the funding they receive through planning obligations in accordance with the terms of the individual planning obligation agreement. This is to ensure that new developments are acceptable in planning terms; benefit local communities and support the provision of local infrastructure.

Planning decisions should be based on Local Plan policy unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Representations from interested third parties may constitute material considerations. Town councils, parish councils and local communities can influence infrastructure and other considerations in Local Plans through the consultation process.

The Community Infrastructure Levy was introduced to provide a faster, fairer and more transparent approach to collecting developer contributions toward infrastructure. The Government launched a review of the Levy in 2015. This review will consider a range of issues, including the relationship between the Levy and Section 106 planning obligations.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sarah Wollaston on 2016-07-20.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what the Government’s plans are for the implementation of the soft drinks industry levy; and if he will publish a timetable for the implementation of that levy.

Jane Ellison

The Soft Drinks Industry Levy consultation was launched on 18^th August 2016. At the Budget in March, the Government announced that it would consult on the Levy during the summer and legislate in Finance Bill 2017, for implementation from April 2018. This timetable remains in place.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sarah Wollaston on 2016-09-05.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many times the National Maritime Operations Centre in Fareham turned down requests from other Category 1 Responders for assistance in the last two years; and for each such request (a) what type of request it was, (b) what reason was recorded for it being turned down and (c) which coastguard station turned it down.

Mr John Hayes

Her Majesty’s Coastguard does not specifically record occurrences when other Category 1 Responders or any other service requests assistance. Information may be held within the text narrative of an incident record but this would require a check of tens of thousands of records over the last two to five years.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sarah Wollaston on 2016-01-04.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment she has made of the potential effect of statutory PSHE education on lowering the level of violence against women and girls; and if she will make a statement.

Edward Timpson

High quality Personal, Social, Health and Economic (PSHE) education has a vital role to play in ensuring that young people leave school prepared for life in modern Britain, helping them develop healthy relationships and recognise unhealthy relationships. It can also give them the skills and knowledge to help keep themselves, and each other, safe. The Government has made it clear in the introduction to the framework to the national curriculum that all schools should teach PSHE. Schools and teachers are best placed to develop their own PSHE curriculum based on the needs of their pupils, drawing on guidance provided by expert organisations such as the PSHE Association.

As stated in the Government response to the select committee report, we will take forward work with the sector to improve the quality of PSHE, and intend to make significant progress on this issue during this parliament.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sarah Wollaston on 2016-04-11.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what procedures are in place to ensure that (a) town councils, (b) parish councils and (c) local communities have the opportunity to influence how Section 106 contributions for highways infrastructure works are spent within their areas.

Brandon Lewis

Section 106 agreements are negotiated and agreed between a local planning authority and a developer and/or landowner along with other interested parties in the land, such as mortgage providers. National planning policy makes clear that Section 106 requirements, modifications and discharges should be transparent and available for inspection.

Local planning authorities are expected to use all of the funding they receive through planning obligations in accordance with the terms of the individual planning obligation agreement. This is to ensure that new developments are acceptable in planning terms; benefit local communities and support the provision of local infrastructure.

Planning decisions should be based on Local Plan policy unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Representations from interested third parties may constitute material considerations. Town councils, parish councils and local communities can influence infrastructure and other considerations in Local Plans through the consultation process.

The Community Infrastructure Levy was introduced to provide a faster, fairer and more transparent approach to collecting developer contributions toward infrastructure. The Government launched a review of the Levy in 2015. This review will consider a range of issues, including the relationship between the Levy and Section 106 planning obligations.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sarah Wollaston on 2016-09-02.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps she is taking to accelerate the process of family reunification for unaccompanied refugee children in Europe.

Mr Robert Goodwill

The Government began work to implement the ‘Dubs amendment’ immediately after the Immigration Bill gained Royal Assent. Over 30 children who meet the criteria in the Immigration Act have been accepted for transfer since it received Royal Assent in May, the majority of these have already arrived in the UK.

We continue to work with the French, Greek and Italian authorities and others to speed up existing family reunification processes or implement new processes where necessary for unaccompanied children. We have seconded a UK official to Greece, we have a long-standing secondee working in Italy and will shortly be seconding another official to the French Interior Ministry to support these efforts.

We have established a dedicated team in the Home Office Dublin Unit to lead on family reunion cases for unaccompanied children. Transfer requests under the Dublin Regulation are now generally processed within 10 days and children transferred within weeks. Over 120 children have been accepted for transfer this year from Europe.

We also continue to consult local authorities about the transfer unaccompanied refugee children from Europe to the UK, where it is in their best interests.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sarah Wollaston on 2016-09-05.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many times the coastguard has turned down requests from other Category 1 Responders for assistance in the last five years; and for each such request (a) what type of request it was, (b) what reason was recorded for it being turned down and (c) which coastguard station turned it down.

Mr John Hayes

Her Majesty’s Coastguard does not specifically record occurrences when other Category 1 Responders or any other service requests assistance. Information may be held within the text narrative of an incident record but this would require a check of tens of thousands of records over the last two to five years.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sarah Wollaston on 2016-01-26.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what plans his Department has to use the (a) £175 million cycling, safety and integration fund and (b) £75 million air quality investment fund referred to in the Government’s Road Investment Strategy for the period 2015-16 to 2019-20.

Mr Robert Goodwill

a) £175 million cycling, safety and integration fund

Highways England is developing a programme of initiatives to improve the safety of the network and to also improve facilities for cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians, identifying further opportunities for improved integration with wider transport networks such as Park & Ride.

This fund supports their ambition to reduce the number of casualties on the strategic road network and encourage walking and cycling as an everyday mode of travel, as set out in the DfT Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy.

(b) £75 million air quality investment fund referred to in the Government’s Road Investment Strategy for the period 2015-16 to 2019-20.

Highways England’s Delivery Plan commits them to start 10 air quality pilot studies in the first 2 years of this road investment period.

These studies are designed to identify new and innovative solutions that will be funded using the air quality designated fund, to improve air quality alongside the strategic road network and support delivery of the major improvement schemes identified in the Road Investment Strategy.

Highways England’s work in relation to air quality, and the use of the £75million air quality designated fund (2015 – 20), is in support of the Government’s National Air Quality Plan.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sarah Wollaston on 2016-04-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, whether regulations are in place to ensure that (a) town councils, (b) parish councils and (c) local communities can exercise a community right to bid for independent qualified contractors to deliver highways infrastructure works that are funded by Section 106 contributions from developments within their parish as part of any competitive bidding process carried out by the local highways authority.

Brandon Lewis

Provisions are in place under the Community Right to Challenge to enable town and parish councils and voluntary and community organisations to challenge how council services are delivered by submitting a bid (Expression of Interest) to the relevant council.

Expressions of Interest need to be made in respect of an existing service and one that the local authority has responsibility for providing, which councils must consider and can only reject if specific circumstances set out in legislation apply. If a developer is undertaking work as part of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, then this would not fall under the scope of the Right to Challenge as it would not be a local authority service.

However, if a highways service was to be delivered by a local authority as a result of a Section 106 contribution then this would be within the scope of the Right, although it is important to note that local authorities are able to reject an Expression of Interest if a service is already the subject of a procurement process or pre-procurement negotiations. If this is the case, the town or parish council or community group would be able to participate in the procurement process.

The Community Right to Bid provides local people and parish councils with the opportunity to nominate a building or land for listing by a local council as an Asset of Community Value (ACV), which, if the owner decides to sell, a moratorium of up to six months is triggered. During the moratorium period, the asset cannot be sold except to a community bidder.

If a highways service was to be delivered by a local authority as a result of a Section 106 contribution then this should be within the scope of the Community Right to Challenge. It is important to note though that local authorities are able to reject an expression of interest if a service is already the subject of a procurement process or if the authority has entered into negotiations with a third party to deliver the service and these are at least in part conducted in writing. Where the services are currently being procured, the organisation in question would be able to participate in the procurement exercise.