Asked by: Marion Fellows (Scottish National Party - Motherwell and Wishaw)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on plans to review the relationship between Government and the courts.
Answered by Chris Philp - Shadow Home Secretary
Her Majesty last week announced that there will be a bill in this session. our aim in any measures we take forward following our recent consultation will not be to curtail the power of the courts, as the Government’s critics have suggested, but rather to enhance it, and to restore the proper balance between courts, parliament and the executive.
Asked by: Marion Fellows (Scottish National Party - Motherwell and Wishaw)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many cases regarding the Child Maintenance Service have been heard at the Social Security and Child Support Tribunal in each of the last five years.
Answered by Chris Philp - Shadow Home Secretary
Information about Child Maintenance Service appeals received into the First-tier Tribunal (Social Security and Child Support) (SSCS) is published at www.gov.uk/government/collections/tribunals-statistics.
The latest period for which data are available is January to March 2020. The most recent tribunal statistics publications covering the period April to September 2020 do not include SSCS data due to issues identified as the Tribunal was being migrated to a new operational system. The data will be made available as soon as this is resolved and the data quality assured.
Asked by: Marion Fellows (Scottish National Party - Motherwell and Wishaw)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many hearings of the (a) first tier and (b) upper tier Social Security and Child Support Tribunals were adjourned in each of the last five years, and for what reasons those hearings were adjourned.
Answered by Chris Philp - Shadow Home Secretary
(1) (a) Data about adjournments for appeals to the First-tier Tribunal (Social Security and Child Support) (SSCS), are published annually, in June, at: www.gov.uk/government/collections/tribunals-statistics. The table below contains a breakdown of the reasons for adjournments.
Number and reasons1 for adjournments in First-tier Tribunal (Social Security and Child Support) hearings | |||||
| Financial Years – April to March | ||||
2014_2015 | 2015_2016 | 2016_2017 | 2017_2018 | 2018_2019 | |
Adjournment reason/category |
|
|
|
|
|
1st Tier Not Ready to Proceed | 291 | 165 | ~ | ~ | 0 |
Adjourned, All Elements Adjourned | 0 | 0 | ~ | ~ | 0 |
Adjourned, Element(s) Outstanding | 0 | 0 | 0 | ~ | ~ |
Admin Not Ready to Proceed | 1,119 | 629 | 17 | 38 | 15 |
Appellant Not Ready to Proceed | 5,507 | 3,760 | 63 | 46 | 31 |
Appellant to attend - oral hearing requested - did not attend - no reason | 0 | 316 | 1,041 | 1,276 | 1,785 |
Appellant to attend - oral hearing requested - did not attend - reason given | 0 | 1,109 | 3,297 | 3,319 | 3,594 |
Appellant to attend - paper requested or no Enquiry Form returned | 0 | 487 | 1,828 | 2,307 | 2,638 |
Documents supplied but not before the Tribunal at the hearing | 0 | 107 | 301 | 332 | 335 |
Evidence or further Response from Respondent required | ~ | 1,124 | 2,999 | 3,509 | 3,451 |
Evidence or submission from Appellant required | 5 | 720 | 2,113 | 2,159 | 2,147 |
Further medical evidence essential | 0 | 2,943 | 11,972 | 15,755 | 16,298 |
Insufficient time to deal with case | 0 | 384 | 1,320 | 1,324 | 1,217 |
No Interpreter | 0 | 316 | 1,236 | 989 | 1,186 |
Other administrative errors | 0 | 240 | 927 | 1,203 | 1,226 |
Other reasons for adjourning | ~ | 1,674 | 5,974 | 7,933 | 7,976 |
Part Allowed | 0 | 0 | ~ | ~ | 0 |
Presenting Officer to attend | 0 | 84 | 212 | 183 | 128 |
Respondent failed to comply with directions | 0 | 46 | 120 | 80 | 51 |
Tribunal Not Ready to Proceed | 20,468 | 14,161 | 563 | 426 | 278 |
Adjournments as a % of hearings listed2 | 17% | 17% | 17% | 18% | 20% |
1 Prior to November 2015 there were four adjournment categories: First Tier Not Ready to Proceed; Admin Not Ready to Proceed; Appellant Not Ready to Proceed; and Tribunal Not Ready to Proceed. The additional categories as above were introduced from November 2015.
~ Equates to a value of fewer than five.
2 Proportion of listed hearings for the totals are weighted averages.
The data may differ slightly to that of the published statistics where reports were run on a different date.
(1) (b) The data for the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeal Chamber) which hears appeals against decisions made by SSCS are not held centrally, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
(2) (a) and (b) these data are not held centrally.
The decision to adjourn a hearing is a judicial function. The panel will only proceed when it is
satisfied it has all the evidence it needs to make a fair and just decision and that may
include further medical evidence.
Asked by: Marion Fellows (Scottish National Party - Motherwell and Wishaw)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many hearings of the (a) first tier and (b) upper tier Social Security and Child Support Tribunals were adjourned due to the appellant not receiving their appeal bundle in each of the last five years.
Answered by Chris Philp - Shadow Home Secretary
(1) (a) Data about adjournments for appeals to the First-tier Tribunal (Social Security and Child Support) (SSCS), are published annually, in June, at: www.gov.uk/government/collections/tribunals-statistics. The table below contains a breakdown of the reasons for adjournments.
Number and reasons1 for adjournments in First-tier Tribunal (Social Security and Child Support) hearings | |||||
| Financial Years – April to March | ||||
2014_2015 | 2015_2016 | 2016_2017 | 2017_2018 | 2018_2019 | |
Adjournment reason/category |
|
|
|
|
|
1st Tier Not Ready to Proceed | 291 | 165 | ~ | ~ | 0 |
Adjourned, All Elements Adjourned | 0 | 0 | ~ | ~ | 0 |
Adjourned, Element(s) Outstanding | 0 | 0 | 0 | ~ | ~ |
Admin Not Ready to Proceed | 1,119 | 629 | 17 | 38 | 15 |
Appellant Not Ready to Proceed | 5,507 | 3,760 | 63 | 46 | 31 |
Appellant to attend - oral hearing requested - did not attend - no reason | 0 | 316 | 1,041 | 1,276 | 1,785 |
Appellant to attend - oral hearing requested - did not attend - reason given | 0 | 1,109 | 3,297 | 3,319 | 3,594 |
Appellant to attend - paper requested or no Enquiry Form returned | 0 | 487 | 1,828 | 2,307 | 2,638 |
Documents supplied but not before the Tribunal at the hearing | 0 | 107 | 301 | 332 | 335 |
Evidence or further Response from Respondent required | ~ | 1,124 | 2,999 | 3,509 | 3,451 |
Evidence or submission from Appellant required | 5 | 720 | 2,113 | 2,159 | 2,147 |
Further medical evidence essential | 0 | 2,943 | 11,972 | 15,755 | 16,298 |
Insufficient time to deal with case | 0 | 384 | 1,320 | 1,324 | 1,217 |
No Interpreter | 0 | 316 | 1,236 | 989 | 1,186 |
Other administrative errors | 0 | 240 | 927 | 1,203 | 1,226 |
Other reasons for adjourning | ~ | 1,674 | 5,974 | 7,933 | 7,976 |
Part Allowed | 0 | 0 | ~ | ~ | 0 |
Presenting Officer to attend | 0 | 84 | 212 | 183 | 128 |
Respondent failed to comply with directions | 0 | 46 | 120 | 80 | 51 |
Tribunal Not Ready to Proceed | 20,468 | 14,161 | 563 | 426 | 278 |
Adjournments as a % of hearings listed2 | 17% | 17% | 17% | 18% | 20% |
1 Prior to November 2015 there were four adjournment categories: First Tier Not Ready to Proceed; Admin Not Ready to Proceed; Appellant Not Ready to Proceed; and Tribunal Not Ready to Proceed. The additional categories as above were introduced from November 2015.
~ Equates to a value of fewer than five.
2 Proportion of listed hearings for the totals are weighted averages.
The data may differ slightly to that of the published statistics where reports were run on a different date.
(1) (b) The data for the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeal Chamber) which hears appeals against decisions made by SSCS are not held centrally, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
(2) (a) and (b) these data are not held centrally.
The decision to adjourn a hearing is a judicial function. The panel will only proceed when it is
satisfied it has all the evidence it needs to make a fair and just decision and that may
include further medical evidence.
Asked by: Marion Fellows (Scottish National Party - Motherwell and Wishaw)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities, pursuant to the Answer of 11 February 2020 to Question 13485 on EnAble Fund for Elected Office, how many applications to the EnAble Fund were made by candidates standing in (a) the 2019 UK General Election, and (b) a Westminster by-election since the launch of that fund.
Answered by Elizabeth Truss
The interim EnAble Fund for Elected Office was set up to cover scheduled elections between December 2018 and March 2020, meaning that funding was not allocated to cover the 2019 General Election. We are exploring options to provide retrospective payments to eligible General Election candidates.
Candidates seeking support for a Parliamentary by-election are considered on a case-by-case basis. We have not received any applications for any Westminster by-elections since the launch of the fund.
Asked by: Marion Fellows (Scottish National Party - Motherwell and Wishaw)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many appeals relating to claims for (a) personal independence payment and (b) employment and support allowance have (i) been heard at Tribunal and (ii) overturned her Department's original decision in each year for which information is available.
Answered by Lucy Frazer
Information about the volumes and outcomes of appeals made to the First-tier Tribunal (Social Security and Child Support) (SSCS), including Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), is published at:
www.gov.uk/government/collections/tribunals-statistics
Latest figures indicate that since PIP was introduced, 3.5 million decisions have been made up to June 2018, and of these 9% have been appealed and 4% have been overturned at Tribunals. For ESA, 3.5m ESA (post Work Capability Assessment) decisions have been made between April 2014 and March 2018 and of these 8% have been appealed and 4% have been overturned at tribunals.
Asked by: Marion Fellows (Scottish National Party - Motherwell and Wishaw)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the cost to the public purse was for Tribunal appeals relating to (a) personal independence payment and (b) employment and support allowance in each year for which information is available.
Answered by Lucy Frazer
The information requested is not held centrally. The cost of Personal Independence Payment and Employment and Support Allowance hearings is included in the overall cost of the First-tier Tribunal (Social Security and Child Support Appeal).
Asked by: Marion Fellows (Scottish National Party - Motherwell and Wishaw)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the ability of people over the age of 55 to pass the fitness test required to be a frontline member of the prison service.
Answered by Rory Stewart
HMPPS takes very seriously the health and safety of all staff working within prisons.
The Normal Pension Age (NPA) under the Civil Service pension scheme is linked to the individual member’s State Pension Age (SPA) and ranges from 65 to 68, based on their date of birth.
There are many factors which determine a person’s ability to pass a fitness test which could not be determined by their age alone.
Since 2007, when the NPA changed for new entrants to 65 under a Career Average Pension, HMPPS has been recruiting new Prison Officers in England and Wales in their sixties who have passed the fitness test and are performing their roles effectively. In addition, many staff who have the right to retire at 60 choose to work beyond their retirement age.
To become a Prison Officer you must pass a Recruitment Assessment Day (RAD) which consists of literacy and numeracy tests, situational judgment tests and physical and medical tests. These determine your suitability for the role and do not take into account a candidate’s age or gender. There are 4 elements of the fitness test including: grip, agility, bleep and holding a shield. All of these elements need to be passed for the candidate to pass the fitness part of the RAD.
All Prison Officers who joined the service after April 2001 must pass an annual fitness test in order to remain a prison officer. Staff who do not meet the annual fitness test standard will be provided with advice and support by a fitness assessor on achieving and maintaining the required fitness level.
Asked by: Marion Fellows (Scottish National Party - Motherwell and Wishaw)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the ability of frontline prison staff to work in an operational role when they are over the age of 60.
Answered by Rory Stewart
HMPPS takes very seriously the health and safety of all staff working within prisons.
The Normal Pension Age (NPA) under the Civil Service pension scheme is linked to the individual member’s State Pension Age (SPA) and ranges from 65 to 68, based on their date of birth.
There are many factors which determine a person’s ability to pass a fitness test which could not be determined by their age alone.
Since 2007, when the NPA changed for new entrants to 65 under a Career Average Pension, HMPPS has been recruiting new Prison Officers in England and Wales in their sixties who have passed the fitness test and are performing their roles effectively. In addition, many staff who have the right to retire at 60 choose to work beyond their retirement age.
To become a Prison Officer you must pass a Recruitment Assessment Day (RAD) which consists of literacy and numeracy tests, situational judgment tests and physical and medical tests. These determine your suitability for the role and do not take into account a candidate’s age or gender. There are 4 elements of the fitness test including: grip, agility, bleep and holding a shield. All of these elements need to be passed for the candidate to pass the fitness part of the RAD.
All Prison Officers who joined the service after April 2001 must pass an annual fitness test in order to remain a prison officer. Staff who do not meet the annual fitness test standard will be provided with advice and support by a fitness assessor on achieving and maintaining the required fitness level.