Asked by: Kevin Brennan (Labour - Cardiff West)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prosecutions each local authority has brought under the provisions governing a blind person's right to travel in licensed taxis with their guide dogs of the Equality Act 2010.
Answered by Dominic Raab
It is an offence under section 168 of the Equalities Act 2010 to refuse to take an assistance dog in a taxi or private hire vehicle. The maximum penalty is a level 3 fine (up to £1,000).
The number of offenders sentenced at all courts (with fines and average fines specifically identified) for failure to comply with a section 168 duty in relation to an assistance dog for a disabled person, in England and Wales, from 2011 (earliest separately identifiable information available) to 2015 can be viewed in table 1.
The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts for failure to comply with a section 168 duty in relation to an assistance dog for a disabled person, listed by local authority prosecuting the case in England and Wales, from 2011 (earliest separately identifiable information available) to 2015 can be viewed in table 2.
Centrally held data by the Ministry of Justice includes information on defendants proceeded against, found guilty and sentenced for criminal offences in England and Wales. Data on whether a guide dog for the blind or a different type of assistance dog was involved in such a case is not held centrally, or reliably recorded where there is no operational reason to do so.
Asked by: Kevin Brennan (Labour - Cardiff West)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average fine is for people found guilty of breaking the law by not allowing the transport of blind people and their guide dogs in licensed taxis under the Equality Act 2010.
Answered by Dominic Raab
It is an offence under section 168 of the Equalities Act 2010 to refuse to take an assistance dog in a taxi or private hire vehicle. The maximum penalty is a level 3 fine (up to £1,000).
The number of offenders sentenced at all courts (with fines and average fines specifically identified) for failure to comply with a section 168 duty in relation to an assistance dog for a disabled person, in England and Wales, from 2011 (earliest separately identifiable information available) to 2015 can be viewed in table 1.
The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts for failure to comply with a section 168 duty in relation to an assistance dog for a disabled person, listed by local authority prosecuting the case in England and Wales, from 2011 (earliest separately identifiable information available) to 2015 can be viewed in table 2.
Centrally held data by the Ministry of Justice includes information on defendants proceeded against, found guilty and sentenced for criminal offences in England and Wales. Data on whether a guide dog for the blind or a different type of assistance dog was involved in such a case is not held centrally, or reliably recorded where there is no operational reason to do so.
Asked by: Kevin Brennan (Labour - Cardiff West)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many fines were issued for disability discrimination against blind people with guide dogs by licensed taxi drivers in each year for which information is available.
Answered by Dominic Raab
It is an offence under section 168 of the Equalities Act 2010 to refuse to take an assistance dog in a taxi or private hire vehicle. The maximum penalty is a level 3 fine (up to £1,000).
The number of offenders sentenced at all courts (with fines and average fines specifically identified) for failure to comply with a section 168 duty in relation to an assistance dog for a disabled person, in England and Wales, from 2011 (earliest separately identifiable information available) to 2015 can be viewed in table 1.
The number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts for failure to comply with a section 168 duty in relation to an assistance dog for a disabled person, listed by local authority prosecuting the case in England and Wales, from 2011 (earliest separately identifiable information available) to 2015 can be viewed in table 2.
Centrally held data by the Ministry of Justice includes information on defendants proceeded against, found guilty and sentenced for criminal offences in England and Wales. Data on whether a guide dog for the blind or a different type of assistance dog was involved in such a case is not held centrally, or reliably recorded where there is no operational reason to do so.
Asked by: Kevin Brennan (Labour - Cardiff West)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many days were taken to process and grant each application for readmission of employment tribunal fees that have been (a) granted and (b) partially granted since the introduction of those fees.
Answered by Shailesh Vara
I have treated your question as asking for the average number of days taken to process remission applications since the introduction of fees. The information on remissions granted both fully and partially is available within the Ministry of Justice Official Tribunal Statistics and can be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/tribunals-statistics.
Asked by: Kevin Brennan (Labour - Cardiff West)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will bring forward legislative proposals to enable families to apply to the courts for the legal right to manage a missing family member's finance and property affairs in their absence.
Answered by Dominic Raab
I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for York Outer on 15 June 2015, which can be found at http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2015-06-08/1400/.
Asked by: Kevin Brennan (Labour - Cardiff West)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the balance between benefit and risk of permitting prisoners to have access to steel strung guitars in their cells.
Answered by Andrew Selous - Second Church Estates Commissioner
Following feedback from prison Governors, we have made some minor adjustments to the property prisoners are allowed to have under the revised Incentives and Earned Privileges (IEP) framework, including metal guitar strings. Governors were notified on 15 July 2014 that, with immediate effect, it was open to them to include full metal guitar strings on their local facilities lists. This allows eligible prisoners to purchase them for use on acoustic guitars kept in-cell.
Full metal strings are, as with the nylon and metal coiled strings which were already permitted, available by application only, issued on a one-for-one basis, and subject to local risk assessment. As with the nylon and metal coiled strings, Governors can make them available to prisoners on the Standard and Enhanced levels of the IEP framework.
Asked by: Kevin Brennan (Labour - Cardiff West)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent assessment he has made of levels of occupancy in prisons in Wales.
Answered by Jeremy Wright
Individual prison population and capacity information for every prison in England and Wales is published monthly on the Ministry of Justice website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prison-population-figures-2014
Prisons are not expected to operate above their operational capacity and ensuring that this capacity is set to reflect the provision of safe and decent accommodation and the operation of suitable regimes ensures that levels of crowding in prisons are carefully managed.
Sensible measures have been taken to ensure that we have sufficient capacity to deal with any temporary increases in population. These include creating additional places in prisons in a safe and decent way and ensuring that prisons reflect the needs of the current population.
We will end this Parliament with more adult male prison places than we inherited, more hours of work in prisons than we inherited, more education for young detainees than we inherited and a more modern, cost effective prison estate than we inherited.