---

 
6 Apr 2005 : Column 1459W
 

Written Answers to Questions

Wednesday 6 April 2005

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

Planning

Andy Burnham: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs pursuant to the answer of 22 March 2005, Official Report, columns 793–94W, 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. [224499]

Mr. Lammy: The Legal Services Commission (LSC) were only able to identify six cases in the answer of 22 March 2005, Official Report, columns 793–94W. 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
2001–02	Stroud, Gloucestershire	Shutway Quarry	4,745.11	Unable to link costs of case	This information is not currently available
2001–02	Hounslow, Middlesex	Private dwelling—extension	2,751.01	4,429.60 plus VAT. Plus 10,500 in costs to claimant	Appeal refused
2002–03	Wexham, Slough	Greenbelt land	The defence met the full costs	Unable to link costs of case	Appeal allowed
2003–04	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
2003–04	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
2004–05	Exeter	Private dwelling—extension	Costs are yet to be determined	Unable to link costs of case	Outcome is currently unknown

It is not possible to predict what the effects on the time scale of each project was. However, I can give the following dates from the cases that we have been able to cross-reference:

Hounslow, Middlesex: The original planning decision was made on 23 January 2001 and the redetermination decision was issued on 16 December 2004.

Otterton, Devon: The decision allowing the appeal was issued on 14 August 2003 and was upheld by the court on 1 March 2004.

Targets

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 2005–06 will be met; [219137]

(2) what recent progress has been made towards the public service agreement target to reduce the proportion of ineffective trials. [219140]

Mr. Lammy: Progress against these targets is set out in the Department for Constitutional Affairs' autumn performance report (Cm 6391) which was presented to Parliament in December 2004.

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 2007–08 will be met. [219138]

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.

Training Budget

John Mann: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, what the total education and training budget of the Department is for 2005–06. [218036]

Substantive answer from David Lammy to John Mann:

PQ 05/476—DCA Education & Training Budget

You tabled a Parliamentary question, ref 218036, to my Department last session. You asked what the total education and training budget of the Department is for 2005–6.

For DCA staff training the total allocation is £4.4m.

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:

£650,000—Leadership and Management programmes—developing the DCA's senior managers leadership skills;

 
6 Apr 2005 : Column 1461W
 

£600,000—Professional Skills for Government—cross-governmental qualifications in Corporate/Specialist, Policy and Operational skills;

£400,000—IT and Business skills—supporting operational staff by maximising their use of IT and their knowledge of the DCA's business to deliver effective services to the public;

£300,000—Continuing Professional Development for Lawyers;

£300,000—Diversity Awareness—ensuring the staff in the Department understand the diverse needs of the society they serve—their customers and their colleagues;

£100,00—First Aid training—ensuring legal obligations are fulfilled for qualified first-aiders to provide support and possibly life-saving assistance to colleagues and the DCA's customers.

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 diversity—recognised as important cornerstones for delivering high quality services.

I have placed a copy of this letter in the libraries of both Houses.

PRIME MINISTER

Iraq War

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. [224703]

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. [224332]

The Prime Minister: Counsel are routinely retained by the Government on the advice of the lead Department(s).

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; [224701]

(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. [224702]

 
6 Apr 2005 : Column 1462W
 

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.

---