I indicated to my honourable friend in my response to his letter of 8th February that my officials have discussed the Galloper wreck site with their counterparts at the Ministry of Defence and Historic England. Consequently, the Government is monitoring the site and understands that vessel traffic monitoring occurs as part of conventional site security.

I am also content that steps have been taken to facilitate management of the site through the action taken by Galloper Wind Farm Ltd to engage with other maritime authorities - including the Royal Navy, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Marine Management Organisation.

Though Historic England has no remit to impose requirements on future development proposals relating to the Galloper wreck site, the Marine Management Organisation routinely consults it on applications for marine licences. DCMS are not routinely part of such discussions, however Historic England do provide information and advice on request.

Regarding the guidance published by DCMS and the Ministry of Defence in 2014 on how existing policies and legislation apply to historic military wreck sites (‘Protection and Management of Historic Military Wrecks outside UK Territorial Waters’), I can confirm that this remains in place. I can also confirm that DCMS would give due consideration to any proposals by developers or other parties to undertake detailed investigations of the Galloper site. However, Government funding to undertake these investigations would need to be considered alongside other priorities.

I indicated to my honourable friend in my response to his letter of 8th February that my officials have discussed the Galloper wreck site with their counterparts at the Ministry of Defence and Historic England. Consequently, the Government is monitoring the site and understands that vessel traffic monitoring occurs as part of conventional site security.

I am also content that steps have been taken to facilitate management of the site through the action taken by Galloper Wind Farm Ltd to engage with other maritime authorities - including the Royal Navy, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Marine Management Organisation.

Though Historic England has no remit to impose requirements on future development proposals relating to the Galloper wreck site, the Marine Management Organisation routinely consults it on applications for marine licences. DCMS are not routinely part of such discussions, however Historic England do provide information and advice on request.

Regarding the guidance published by DCMS and the Ministry of Defence in 2014 on how existing policies and legislation apply to historic military wreck sites (‘Protection and Management of Historic Military Wrecks outside UK Territorial Waters’), I can confirm that this remains in place. I can also confirm that DCMS would give due consideration to any proposals by developers or other parties to undertake detailed investigations of the Galloper site. However, Government funding to undertake these investigations would need to be considered alongside other priorities.

The information requested is not held centrally. Following commencement of provisions in the Children and Social Work Act 2017, Local Safeguarding Children Boards are currently being phased out and replaced by safeguarding partners (police, health and local authority). There is no requirement to have an independent chair of the new arrangements, which must be in place by September 2019.

There is a range of measures available to the police and local authorities to prevent or respond to dog attacks on livestock. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 makes it an offence to allow a dog to be dangerously out of control and this includes in and around livestock. In addition, the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 makes it an offence to allow a dog to worry livestock. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 includes specific powers for police and local authorities to take action before a dog becomes dangerously out of control by issuing a warning notice for low level dog related nuisance. The table below provides the number of people prosecuted under the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 for allowing dogs to worry all types of livestock, including sheep, in the last five years for which figures are available. Prosecutions have been made under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 but data is not centrally held on the circumstances of how the dog was dangerously out of control.

We are carefully considering safeguarding issues related to reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004. We have been very clear that we are not going to be changing the existing safeguards in the Equality Act. Safeguarding is always a priority and, in line with the usual obligations on Government, any proposed new gender recognition system will be rigorously assessed in terms of its potential effect on other groups in society, as well as its implications for safeguarding processes in specific contexts, such as prisons. As part of the Gender Recognition Act consultation, we are keen to hear from respondents on these points.

Any new system that is proposed in the Government’s response to the Gender Recognition Act consultation will be subject to a full impact assessment.

The number of children who have been placed on a child protection plan in each of the last five years is available in table A2 of the annual Children In Need statistical publication:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/characteristics-of-children-in-need-2015-to-2016

We do not hold information in the requested format on the number of the children who came back onto a child protection plan within 2 years of coming off one.

It is important that firearms officers are supported to make the difficult decisions necessary to protect the public, and are able to carry out their duties without fearing that a justified use of force will damage their careers. It is also essential that decisions by the police to use force of any kind are subject to proper scrutiny.

That was why the previous Home Secretary commissioned officials to review the legal and procedural framework governing police use of firearms and post-incident investigation. The review is ongoing.

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that the system does all it can to reduce the effect, particularly on vulnerable witnesses, of giving evidence in these difficult cases. That is why I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has decided to extend what I believe was a successful pilot of pre-recorded cross-examination. It means that vulnerable witnesses, particularly children, can give their

evidence outside a courtroom environment and have it all done and dusted before the trial begins, which also means that they are not affected by any delays that the trial may then be subject to. That is hugely important, as is the opportunity for prosecutors to speak to witnesses and explain what is going on, and I am pleased to say that that has resulted in much improved satisfaction rates among witnesses for the support they get from the CPS.

Prosecutors can apply for special measures to allow victims and witnesses to give evidence in court unseen by the defendant. The Government are making available the opportunity for vulnerable witnesses to give pre-recorded evidence without going into a courtroom at all. In addition, recent CPS guidance, now implemented nationwide, makes it clear what prosecutors can do to explain what is likely to happen at court, so that victims and witnesses can better understand the trial process and give the best evidence they can.

The planning conditions measure in the Neighbourhood Planning Bill will not restrict the ability of local planning authorities to propose conditions that are necessary to achieve sustainable development, in line with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Where a pre-commencement condition is required to address archaeological considerations and meets the tests for conditions set out in national policy, then the authority can impose such a condition, with the agreement of the applicant. In the unlikely event that an applicant refuses to agree to such a pre-commencement condition being imposed, the local planning authority can refuse planning permission.

The planning system already contains strong protections for sites of archaeological interest. These protections will apply to measures introduced by the Housing and Planning Act.

There are no plans to release local authority children’s services departments from their safeguarding responsibilities. The Children and Social Work Bill proposes a power for local authorities to test different ways of working. This power is not about questioning the fundamentals of what local authorities need to do in relation to children’s safeguarding, but about exploring how things could be done better. We are seeking to create a controlled, time-limited space to test new ways of working before seeking to make any wider changes to the legislative framework. Accountability for safeguarding will remain the same even if exemptions are being tested.

Clause 15 of the Children and Social Work Bill is key to bringing about the changes proposed by Alan Wood in his review of the role and function of Local Safeguarding Children Boards. The review’s recommendations, which we accepted, were to replace the existing Local Safeguarding Children Board structure with a stronger but more flexible framework for multi-agency working in local areas. We believe that this stronger framework and flexibility, as set out in clause 15, will improve outcomes for children and their families and enable the effective sharing of information which is so fundamental to safeguarding children.

At the heart of the government’s agenda for all children is how to safeguard and protect children from harm. An important part of this is the work of the cross-government Ministerial taskforce on Child Protection.

The Child Protection Implementation Taskforce is taking a comprehensive approach to child protection through looking at the children social care system as a whole. Every stage of the child’s journey in the care system is important to safeguard and protect children. The Taskforce has looked at how we get the best people to deliver the right outcomes for allchildren– in particular through social work reform and improving leadership; through improving systems and practice – building a better performing, more innovative social care sector; and through accountability and governance, looking at how arrangements locally and nationally help to drive a strong and improving system. It is monitoring implementation and driving forward improvements and reform.

The Department for Education published a paper in January 2016 - ‘Children’s social care reform: a vision for change’ - which outlines the areas of reform the Taskforce has been looking at. This can be found on the gov.uk website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/childrens-social-care-reform-a-vision-for-change

Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs) are funded through contributions from their partners as agreed locally, including local authorities, health services and the police. LSCBs publish details of these contributions in their annual reports, but these figures are not collated centrally. The Government does not provide ring-fenced funding for LSCBs.

On 14 December 2015, the Prime Minister announced that there would be a review of LSCBs. This review has now commenced and will report by the end of March 2016.

The sickness absence rates for all children’s social workers in England can be found online here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/statistics-childrens-social-care-workforce

Data is only available for the last two years.

The role of the Child Protection Taskforce is to drive forward fundamental reform in order to protect the most vulnerable children. It will be responsible for leading improvements across police, social services and other agencies, focusing on transforming social work and children’s services. Ministers are currently considering how best to consult experts and identify the resources required for the successful delivery of the taskforce.