Tag: Sarah Wollaston

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 have access to itemised expenditure on any associated administrative, legal, design, preparatory or maintenance works associated with individual highways infrastructure works within their areas on which Section 106 contributions have been spent.

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 2016-07-07.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether legislative changes will be required to remove the NHS bursary for healthcare students by September 2017; and if he will make a statement.

Ben Gummer

The proposed reforms to healthcare education funding for introduction on 1 August 2017 will not require amendments to the legislation under which the National Health Service bursary is provided.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many fully-trained coastguard staff working at the National Maritime Operations Centre in Fareham were on the daytime watch covering the south coast from Plymouth to Selsey Bill on (a) 2 May 2015, (b) 9 July 2015, (c) 24 May 2016, (d) 29 May 2016 and (e) 4 June 2016.

Mr John Hayes

The operational concepts and procedures that underpin Her Majesty’s Coastguard’s national network mean that the Coastguard Centres within it no longer have fixed geographic boundaries. This enables Coastguards at either the National Maritime Operations Centre (NMOC) or any of the 9 Coastguard Operations Centres (CGOC) to coordinate any incident anywhere around the UK coast irrespective of their location. As a result workload is now managed on a national basis rather than Centre by Centre as was previously the case. National capability and Coastguard staff from any Centre are now available to provide additional support to any individual Centre within the network when it is considered necessary by senior operational managers.

Therefore the national network had the following fully trained coastguard staff on daytime watch for the following dates:

• 2 May 2015 – Total network staff 25 (national network in transition: Network Centres – NMOC, Falmouth, Holyhead, Milford Haven, Humber. Centres still to transition – Belfast, Stornoway, Shetland, Aberdeen, London and Dover)

• 9 July 2015 – Total network staff 37 (national network in transition: Network Centres – NMOC, Falmouth, Holyhead, Milford Haven, Humber. Centres still to transition – Belfast, Stornoway, Shetland, Aberdeen, London and Dover)

• 24 May 2016 – Total network staff 46 (Full national network)

• 29 May 2016 – Total network staff 41 (Full national network)

• 4 June 2016 – Total network staff 45 (Full national network)

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.