To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs pursuant to the answer of 22 March 2005, Official Report, columns 79394W, on planning, what the
6 Apr 2005 : Column 1460W
(a) location and (b) name of each of the contested planning developments is; how much was spent on mounting and defending the challenge in each case; what the final outcome of each case was; and what the effect on the timescale of each project was. 
Mr. Lammy: The Legal Services Commission (LSC) were only able to identify six cases in the answer of 22 March 2005, Official Report, columns 79394W. This does not include possible judicial reviews because the LSC does not record figures for judicial review by way of type of application.
Different Departments record their information in different ways, therefore the Government have been unable to match the records for all of these six cases without incurring disproportionate costs. However, the following information has been obtained from the LSC, the Planning Inspectorate and the Treasury Solicitors:
|Location||Contested development||Legal aid costs (£)||Defence costs (£)||Outcome of case|
|200102||Stroud, Gloucestershire||Shutway Quarry||4,745.11||Unable to link costs of case||This information is not currently available|
|200102||Hounslow, Middlesex||Private dwellingextension||2,751.01||4,429.60 plus VAT. Plus 10,500 in costs to claimant||Appeal refused|
|200203||Wexham, Slough||Greenbelt land||The defence met the full costs||Unable to link costs of case||Appeal allowed|
|200304||Otterton, Devon||The location of a mobile phone mast||3,152.12 (legal aid only covered preparation costs to trial)||3,360. (Unsuccessful claimant ordered to pay costs)||Appeal refused|
|200304||Middlewich Cheshire||The disposal of hazardous waste in rock salt mines||Costs are yet to be finalised||Costs are yet to be finalised||Appeal refused|
|200405||Exeter||Private dwellingextension||Costs are yet to be determined||Unable to link costs of case||Outcome is currently unknown|
Mr. Bercow: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) what recent assessment he has made of whether the public service agreement target to increase the number of crimes for which an offender is brought to justice to 1.2 million by 200506 will be met; 
Mr. Bercow: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what recent assessment he has made of whether the public service agreement target to increase the number of crimes for which an offender is brought to justice to 1.25 million by 200708 will be met. 
Mr. Lammy: Plans to deliver this public service agreement target, which was announced as part of the 2004 spending review and came into effect on 1 April 2005, are currently being developed. Progress will be covered in the departmental report 2005 and the autumn performance report 2005 both of which will be laid before Parliament later this year.
The major business customers for training (e.g. the new Her Majesty's Courts Service) are in the process of agreeing their Business Plans that inform their staff education and training needs. Therefore not all of this expenditure can be precisely broken down at present. The areas that can be are:
As an Investor In People (IiP) employer the DCA provides active support to the continuing education and development of all staff. At the March 2004 IiP assessment, the DCA was praised on its approach to leadership and diversityrecognised as important cornerstones for delivering high quality services.
Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of 16 March 2005, Official Report, column 301W, on Iraq, whether it was on his instructions that the Attorney-General went to Washington in relation to the legal situation relating to war against Iraq on 21 and 22 July 2003 to have talks with the US Defense Department General Counsel and the Australian Justice Minister. 
The Prime Minister: The Attorney-General's visit to Washington in July 2003 did not relate to the military action in Iraq. As the Attorney-General made clear in a statement issued on 22 July 2003, he had discussions with senior representatives of the US Administration about the British detainees in Guantanamo Bay with a view to ensuring that the detainees, if prosecuted, were guaranteed fair trials in accordance with international standards and to make clear the Government's opposition to the death penalty.
Glenda Jackson: To ask the Prime Minister when he was first informed that Professor Christopher Greenwood QC had been retained by the Government to assist in relation to legal issues arising from the Iraq conflict. 
Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Solicitor-General (1) on how many occasions Professor Christopher Greenwood was paid by the Attorney-General's office for legal opinions on the legality of military action against Iraq; and how much was paid in each case; 
(2) what guidance Professor Christopher Greenwood was given about appearances in the print and broadcasting media in relation to opinions about the legality of the Iraq war which he provided to the Prime Minister. 
The Solicitor-General: As I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) of 8 March 2005, Official Report, column 1639W, and the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) of 4 April 2005, Official Report, column 1224W, Professor Christopher Greenwood QC was not instructed to advise on whether the war in Iraq would be lawful.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|