|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Yvette Cooper: Under the old system of development plans, 72 local planning authorities had responsibility for the preparation of a unitary development plan; there is only one authority who is still working towards the adoption of its first unitary development plan.
Of the 71 adopted unitary development plans, 37 made provision for the period up to 2001 and were not revised under the old development plan system. Of the remaining 34 plans, 20 make provision for the period up until 2006; five to 2011 and nine to 2016.
The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (PCPA 2004) enables for the policies contained in adopted unitary development plans to be saved" for a period of at least three years from commencement of the Act or three years from the adoption of a unitary development plan if that is after commencement. The PCPA 2004 also makes the Regional Spatial Strategy part of the development plan which, together with the new local development framework (LDF) that includes the saved" unitary development plan policies, provides the framework for planning in local authority's area. All 72 authorities are now working up their LDFs.
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to the Answer of 30 November 2005, Official Report, column 587W, (1) on the Valuation Office Agency, how many claims for compensation the Agency has received since 1997; and what the result of the claim was in each case; 
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much the Valuation Office Agency spent on foreign visits in each year in the last five years; and if he will list the location and purpose of each foreign visit. 
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to the Answer to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) of 20 January 2006, Official Report, column 1699W, on the Valuation Office Agency, from what date the Valuation Office Agency has had access to data held in the National Register of Social Housing. 
The Valuation Office Agency does not have direct access to the National Register of Social Housing (NRoSH) database. A list of addresses of properties on the National Register was supplied to the VOA, in electronic format, on 2 March 2005.
Dr. Francis: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidance he issues to local planning authorities on the siting of wind farms on or near (a) national parks and (b) areas of outstanding natural beauty. 
Mr. Bone: To ask the Solicitor-General what criteria are used by the Crown Prosecution Service in distinguishing between a case of (a) dangerous and (b) careless driving where someone is killed. 
The Solicitor-General: Crown Prosecutors apply the Code for Crown Prosecutors in every case to decide if there is sufficient evidence of (a) dangerous driving or (b) careless driving. What amounts to sufficient evidence will vary according to the facts and circumstances of each case, and the fact of a death, while a very important factor, is not determinative of dangerousness or carelessness in any case. National charging standards exist to assist prosecutors to make consistent and appropriate decisions according to the evidence in each case.
Dangerous driving can range from a prolonged and deliberate course of driving with disregard for safety of other road users to a single but serious misjudgment. Typically, careless driving will consist of more minor errors or misjudgements. In deciding between the offences, prosecutors must take into account the manner of the driving and the circumstances in which the driving took place when deciding how far the driving departed from the required standard. To prove a charge of causing death by dangerous driving, the law requires the prosecution to show that the driving fell far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way was dangerous. To prove careless driving it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that the driving fell below that of a reasonable, prudent and competent driver.
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Solicitor-General when he will review the operation of magistrates courts with regard to delays in cases being heard by magistrates, with particular reference to Peterborough magistrates' court; and if she will make a statement. 
The primary cause of delays at Peterborough is the increase in cases being brought to court. A strategy has been drawn up to handle the increasing workload at Peterborough which will include the assistance of a District Judge (magistrates courts) from April 2006.
Mr. Heald: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs pursuant to the answer of 14 December 2005, Official Report, column 2045W, when she will publish the research into the impact on ethnic minorities of competitive tendering. 
Mr. Heald: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs pursuant to the answer of 3 March 2006, Official Report, column 1005W, if she will place in the Library a copy of the PKF report prepared as part of Lord Carter's review. 
Ms Harman: The PKF report to Lord Carter of Coles, has not yet been completed. PKF is undertaking some further research in conjunction with Otterburn Legal Consultancy. The combined research will be published in due course.
Mr. Heald: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs pursuant to the answer of 3 March 2006, Official Report, column 1007W, if she will place in the Library a summary of the Frontier Economics research. 
Ms Harman: Frontier Economics is providing ongoing economic expertise to Lord Carter on a consultancy basis. Frontier has not undertaken any specific research as part of Lord Carter's independent review of legal aid procurement.
Mr. Jenkins: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many parents have court-ordered access arrangements that allow main contact with their children only (a) at weekends and (b) on Sundays. 
The IT systems in the courts do not allow for collection of details, which are entered in narrative form, on to each contact order, thus the Government cannot routinely collect data such as frequency and timing of contact as ordered by the courts.
20 Mar 2006 : Column 76W
The Government would like better data about what orders for contact are made, and the related issues of what parents seek from an order, what evidence is brought before the court and what arguments are employed in the decision making process. During the passage of the Children and Adoption Bill, the Government undertook to commission research on what happens between a contact case coming to court and a final order being made, including the frequency and duration of contact in the final order and any interim orders made. This project is now being commissioned and it is expected that it will take about 18 months to carry out.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|