Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Shailesh Vara and David Rutley

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

T3. In view of the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association’s campaign concerning certain cases relating to taxi and private hire drivers refusing carriage to guide dog owners, will the Minister tell the House what the Government’s position is on this important issue?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

I am happy to set out the Government’s position on this important issue. It is an offence under section 168 of the Equality Act 2010 to refuse to take an assistance dog in a taxi or private hire vehicle. The penalty is a maximum of £1,000. As far as sentencing is concerned, my hon. Friend will appreciate that that is a matter for the judiciary, which of course acts independently.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Shailesh Vara and David Rutley

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

T2. I know that my hon. Friend regards access to justice as a clear priority. With that in mind, and given the large area of north-east Cheshire that will be without easy access to a court under the proposals in the current consultation, can he tell the House what progress is being made in considering the Macclesfield proposal for a single, combined Macclesfield justice centre?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

I thank my hon. Friend for the meeting we had and for the justice centre report that he and his constituent presented to me. He will be aware that we are giving serious consideration to that report and, indeed, to the 2,000-plus submissions made in the consultation, to which we will respond soon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Shailesh Vara and David Rutley

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Good progress has been made in clearing the backlog of inadmissible cases, but more work is needed to address the growing backlog of admissible cases, hence the recent Brighton declaration under the UK’s chairmanship of the Council of Europe, which represents a substantial and important step towards realising the Government’s ambitions.

[David Rutley]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the European Court should be a court of last resort and end the practice of revisiting domestic courts’ decisions when it does not need to do so?

[Mr Vara]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We expect the effect of the reforms agreed under the Brighton declaration to be that more cases are resolved at the national level, which should mean that fewer cases are considered by the Court.