Asked by: Lord Kempsell (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what progress has been made on the roll-out of stab vests to high-risk prison staff.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
In June, the Government announced that protective body armour would be issued to frontline prison officers working in the highest risk areas of the prison estate. Delivery of this equipment began in September and is expected to be completed by the end of the month. This initiative is part of our wider commitment to enhancing safety and security across the prison estate, ensuring staff are properly equipped to carry out their duties in demanding environments.
Asked by: Lord Kempsell (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many prisons have operational enhanced gate security funded by the Security Investment Programme, and whether they will publish the names of those prisons.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Department is committed to taking every possible measure to strengthen prison security.
The Security Investment Programme was a £100 million investment to strengthen prison security. It was aimed at reducing crime in prisons, including the smuggling of illicit items such as drugs and other contraband.
Airport-style Enhanced Gate Security, comprising of metal detectors and X-ray baggage scanners, is used to search staff and visitors as they enter the prison. It is in use in 54 high-risk prison sites (both private and public sector), including all of the High Security prisons in the Long-Term High Security Estate. The Security Investment Programme funded Enhanced Gate Security to 42 of the total 54 high-risk prisons that have these physical countermeasures.
The following prisons have operational Enhanced Gate Security:
SIP Funded | Non-SIP Funded | ||
Altcourse | Exeter | Northumberland | Belmarsh |
Aylesbury | Featherstone | Norwich | Fosse Way |
Bedford | Forest Bank | Nottingham | Five Wells |
Berwyn | Garth | Onley | Frankland |
Birmingham | Gartree | Peterborough | Full Sutton |
Brinsford | Hewell | Ranby | Long Lartin |
Bristol | High Down | Risley | Lowdham Grange |
Brixton | Humber | Rochester | Manchester |
Bullingdon | Lancaster Farms | Swaleside | Millsike |
Cardiff | Leeds | Swansea | Wakefield |
Chelmsford | Leicester | The Mount | Whitemoor |
Durham | Lewes | Wandsworth | Woodhill |
Elmley | Lincoln | Winchester |
|
Erlestoke | Liverpool | Wormwood Scrubs |
|
Asked by: Lord Kempsell (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government when the job of Director General Chief Executive of the Prison and Probation Service was advertised, what the format of the selection procedure was for that job, how many applicants applied, and who was on the selection panel.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Appointments to critical Director General or Senior Civil Service Pay Band 3 roles are overseen by the Senior Leadership Committee (SLC), a cross-Government governance board led by the Cabinet Office. The SLC is responsible for approving how these senior roles are filled, ensuring consistency and rigour across Departments. The previous Director General Chief Executive of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), Amy Rees CB, was temporarily appointed to the role of interim Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Justice in April 2025, while a selection process for the Permanent Secretary post took place. Phil Copple CB, the appointed Director General of Operations at HMPPS, was identified through succession planning as the interim CEO of HMPPS, and his temporary appointment was subsequently confirmed by the SLC. In September 2025, Amy Rees moved to a new role as Chief Executive of Homes England. Following SLC approval, on 18 September 2025, James McEwen, Director General and Chief Operating Officer at the Ministry of Justice, was confirmed as the permanent successor to the HMPPS CEO role in a managed move. He will formally take up the post in October 2025.
Asked by: Lord Kempsell (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many super-injunctions are currently in force in England and Wales.
Answered by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
The Government does not routinely publish or hold centralised data on the number of super-injunctions currently in force, due to the sensitive and often confidential nature of such orders.
Where such orders are made, they are typically issued by the High Court under strict judicial oversight and may include provisions that prevent disclosure of their very existence.
Asked by: Lord Kempsell (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what was the cost to the Courts and Tribunal Service of the provision of language interpreters in (1) 2020–21, (2) 2021–22, (3) 2022–23, and (4) 2023–24, broken down by language those interpreters were translating from.
Answered by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
The total spend by HM Courts and Tribunals Service on translation and interpretation in each of the last four financial years was:
Financial Year | Spend (£) |
2020-21 | 7,094,093 |
2021-22 | 10,788,205 |
2022-23 | 11,489,997 |
2023-24 | 12,774,105 |
HMCTS does not hold expenditure information disaggregated by language, or to differentiate a) translation, and b) interpretation, so the total expenditure has been provided.
These figures include cover expenditure on the interpretation of official languages of the United Kingdom, including Welsh, as well as to provide equality for those with conditions that can be defined as a disability under the Equality Act, such as sign language interpretation.
These figures do not include any translation or interpretation spend covered by Legal Aid Agency central funds as these are not included in the accounts for HM Courts and Tribunals Service.
Asked by: Lord Kempsell (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what was the total cost to the Courts and Tribunal Service of the provision of language interpreters whose first language was not English in (1) 2020–21, (2) 2021–22, (3) 2022–23, and (4) 2023–24.
Answered by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
The total spend by HM Courts and Tribunals Service on translation and interpretation in each of the last four financial years was:
Financial Year | Spend (£) |
2020-21 | 7,094,093 |
2021-22 | 10,788,205 |
2022-23 | 11,489,997 |
2023-24 | 12,774,105 |
HMCTS does not hold expenditure information disaggregated to a) translation, and b) interpretation, so the total expenditure has been provided.
These figures include cover expenditure on the interpretation of official languages of the United Kingdom, including Welsh, as well as to provide equality for those with conditions that can be defined as a disability under the Equality Act, such as sign language interpretation.
These figures do not include any translation or interpretation spend covered by Legal Aid Agency central funds as these are not included in the accounts for HM Courts and Tribunals Service.
Asked by: Lord Kempsell (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what percentage of Social Security and Child Support Tribunal hearings had a language interpreter provided to appellants whose first language was not English by the Courts and Tribunal Service in (1) 2021–22, (2) 2022–23, and (3) 2023–24.
Answered by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
The Ministry of Justice does not hold the information requested.
Asked by: Lord Kempsell (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what percentage of Social Security and Child Support Tribunal hearings were overturned in favour of the claimant in (1) 2020–21, (2) 2021–22, (3) 2022–23, and (4) 2023–24, broken down by (a) venue, (b) regional office, and (c) UK nation.
Answered by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
Decisions on benefits - typically, on a person’s entitlement to benefit, or its rate of payment - can be overturned on appeal for a variety of reasons. For instance, further evidence, including oral testimony, may be provided at the hearing. HM Courts & Tribunals Service cannot comment on decisions made by independent tribunal judiciary.
Information about overturn rates for appeals to the First-tier Tribunal (Social Security and Child Support) is published on gov.uk. The most recent statistics, for the period October to December 2024, was published on 13 March 2025 and is copied below.
Social Security and Child Support - Percentage of hearings overturned in favour(4) of claimant by financial year and venue, 2020/21 to 2023/24(1,2,3,5) | |||||
Venue | Region(6) | 2020/21 | 2021/22 | 2022/23 | 2023/24 |
Aberdeen | Scotland | 57% | 48% | 55% | 56% |
Aberystwyth | Wales | 86% | 60% | 70% | 74% |
Aldershot | South West | 81% | 64% | 72% | 56% |
Ashford | South East | 74% | 57% | 65% | 62% |
Ayr | Scotland | 60% | 58% | 57% | 66% |
Barnsley | North East | 57% | 46% | 56% | 54% |
Barnstaple | South West | 88% | 67% | 63% | 50% |
Barrow | North West | 76% | 67% | 68% | 65% |
Basildon | South East | 74% | 63% | 67% | 63% |
Bedford | South East | 72% | 62% | 65% | 57% |
Bedlington | North East | 53% | 43% | 50% | 45% |
Benbecula | Scotland | 40% | 100% | 30% | 100% |
Berwick | North East | .. | 0% | 20% | 33% |
Bexleyheath | London | 78% | 63% | 65% | 71% |
Birkenhead | North West | 71% | 65% | 62% | 63% |
Birmingham | Midlands | 72% | 59% | 54% | 54% |
Blackburn | North West | 69% | 60% | 59% | 66% |
Blackpool | North West | 71% | 45% | 56% | 68% |
Bolton | North West | 66% | 54% | 57% | 65% |
Boston | Midlands | 74% | 71% | 60% | 63% |
Bournemouth | South West | 86% | 74% | 78% | 67% |
Bradford | North East | 59% | 52% | 54% | 48% |
Brighton | South East | 69% | 56% | 65% | 64% |
Bristol | South West | 84% | 71% | 73% | 66% |
Bromley | London | 83% | .. | .. | .. |
Burnley | North West | 61% | 56% | 62% | 61% |
Caernarfon | Wales | 77% | 63% | 64% | 68% |
Cambridge | South East | 66% | 52% | 58% | 60% |
Campbeltown Centre | Scotland | 67% | 75% | 65% | 56% |
Cardiff | Wales | 81% | 70% | 71% | 62% |
Carlisle | North West | 71% | 56% | 66% | 70% |
Carmarthen | Wales | 88% | 53% | 75% | 72% |
Chatham | South East | 75% | 65% | 58% | 62% |
Chelmsford | South East | 68% | 46% | 60% | 62% |
Chester | North West | 71% | 59% | 58% | 66% |
Chesterfield | Midlands | 75% | 71% | 67% | 70% |
Colchester | South East | 80% | 100% | 0% | .. |
Coventry | Midlands | 77% | 65% | 64% | 69% |
Darlington | North East | 59% | 54% | 50% | 45% |
Derby | Midlands | 75% | 67% | 62% | 63% |
Doncaster | North East | 58% | 54% | 57% | 47% |
Dumfries (Cairndale) | Scotland | 61% | 56% | 65% | 63% |
Dundee | Scotland | 58% | 59% | 54% | 57% |
Dunfermline | Scotland | 54% | 61% | 58% | 67% |
Durham | North East | 72% | 59% | 45% | 42% |
Eagle Building | Scotland | 49% | 45% | 100% | .. |
East London | London | 69% | 63% | 68% | 71% |
Eastbourne | South East | 79% | 64% | 60% | 27% |
Edinburgh | Scotland | 64% | 56% | 56% | 62% |
Enfield | London | 72% | 69% | 76% | 74% |
Exeter | South West | 82% | 66% | 73% | 72% |
Fox Court | London | 72% | 66% | 70% | 76% |
Galashiels | Scotland | 59% | 61% | 58% | 56% |
Gateshead | North East | 57% | 53% | 39% | 35% |
Glasgow | Scotland | 62% | 57% | 57% | 62% |
Gloucester | South West | 80% | 67% | 69% | 67% |
Greenock | Scotland | 66% | 61% | 52% | 63% |
Grimsby | North East | 63% | 48% | 60% | 49% |
Hamilton | Scotland | 52% | 57% | 58% | 56% |
Hastings | South East | 72% | 57% | 59% | 62% |
Hatton Cross | London | 75% | 63% | 68% | 72% |
Havant | South West | 76% | 63% | 60% | 58% |
Haverfordwest | Wales | 85% | 57% | 71% | 85% |
Hereford | Midlands | 78% | 57% | 59% | 52% |
High Wycombe | South East | 70% | 61% | 60% | 60% |
Holborn | London | 64% | .. | .. | .. |
Huddersfield | North East | 78% | 100% | 67% | 85% |
Hull | North East | 57% | 54% | 57% | 55% |
Inverness | Scotland | 61% | 56% | 56% | 59% |
Ipswich | South East | 66% | 54% | 60% | 65% |
Kidderminster | Midlands | 77% | 67% | 57% | 68% |
Kilmarnock | Scotland | 55% | 53% | 63% | 53% |
Kings Lynn | South East | 66% | 50% | 48% | 63% |
Kirkcaldy | Scotland | 56% | 56% | 47% | 58% |
Kirkwall | Scotland | 57% | 63% | 65% | 54% |
Lancaster | North West | 71% | 64% | 61% | 66% |
Langstone, Newport | Wales | 70% | 71% | 69% | 67% |
Leeds | North East | 67% | 59% | 59% | 60% |
Leicester | Midlands | 73% | 65% | 66% | 64% |
Lerwick | Scotland | 70% | 45% | 60% | 50% |
Lewis | Scotland | 50% | 64% | 60% | 70% |
Lincoln | Midlands | 78% | 67% | 61% | 61% |
Liverpool | North West | 69% | 65% | 66% | 67% |
Llandrindod Wells | Wales | 47% | 20% | 75% | 100% |
Llandudno | Wales | 68% | .. | .. | 100% |
Llanelli | Wales | 77% | 57% | 68% | 81% |
Luton | South East | 71% | 56% | 66% | 63% |
Maidenhead | South East | 100% | .. | .. | .. |
Manchester | North West | 68% | 61% | 61% | 66% |
Margate | South East | 73% | 58% | 65% | 61% |
Middlesbrough | North East | 33% | .. | .. | .. |
Milton Keynes | South East | 78% | 73% | 73% | 58% |
Newcastle | North East | 54% | 46% | 42% | 36% |
Newport IOW | South West | 80% | 67% | 83% | 71% |
Newton Abbot | South West | 71% | 71% | 68% | 74% |
North Shields | North East | 64% | 57% | 50% | 40% |
Northampton | Midlands | 73% | 68% | 63% | 69% |
Norwich | South East | 61% | 53% | 63% | 59% |
Nottingham | Midlands | 75% | 66% | 64% | 64% |
Nuneaton | Midlands | 82% | 79% | 64% | 64% |
Oban | Scotland | 40% | 69% | 85% | 44% |
Oxford | South East | 64% | 58% | 60% | 60% |
Peterborough | South East | 71% | 58% | 66% | 65% |
Plymouth | South West | 77% | 70% | 72% | 66% |
Pontypridd | Wales | 100% | .. | .. | .. |
Poole | South West | 66% | 69% | 70% | 65% |
Port Talbot | Wales | 73% | 66% | 69% | 75% |
Portsmouth | South West | 100% | .. | 75% | .. |
Prestatyn | Wales | 73% | 74% | 74% | 71% |
Preston | North West | 75% | 61% | 59% | 61% |
Reading | South East | 75% | 57% | 59% | 66% |
Rochdale | North West | 66% | 63% | 64% | 65% |
Romford | London | 76% | 67% | 68% | 70% |
Salisbury | South West | 80% | 67% | 80% | 66% |
Scarborough | North East | 65% | 57% | 66% | 53% |
Sheffield | North East | 67% | 55% | 57% | 56% |
Shrewsbury | Midlands | 75% | 68% | 50% | 48% |
South Shields | North East | 65% | 50% | 46% | 47% |
Southampton | South West | 74% | 70% | 71% | 60% |
Southend | South East | 75% | 59% | 76% | 70% |
St Helens | North West | 69% | 55% | 60% | 68% |
Stevenage | South East | 76% | 64% | 68% | 63% |
Stirling | Scotland | 59% | 62% | 58% | 54% |
Stockport | North West | 71% | 64% | 69% | 68% |
Stoke | Midlands | 73% | 64% | 59% | 61% |
Stranraer | Scotland | 60% | 51% | 62% | 52% |
Sunderland | North East | 65% | 52% | 41% | 33% |
Sutton | London | 75% | 68% | 71% | 74% |
Swansea | Wales | 80% | 73% | 70% | 68% |
Swindon | South West | 78% | 68% | 71% | 60% |
Taunton | South West | 75% | 68% | 75% | 75% |
Teesside | North East | 63% | 54% | 42% | 38% |
Telford | Midlands | 77% | 36% | 71% | .. |
Truro | South West | 82% | 64% | 81% | 73% |
Wakefield | North East | 67% | 56% | 62% | 61% |
Walsall | Midlands | 70% | 61% | 53% | 54% |
Watford | South East | 73% | 50% | 56% | 64% |
Wellingborough | Midlands | 75% | 69% | 67% | 71% |
Welshpool | Wales | 74% | 38% | 48% | 83% |
Weymouth and Dorchester | South West | 80% | 67% | 75% | 66% |
Wick | Scotland | 71% | 42% | 41% | 61% |
Wigan | North West | 67% | 53% | 55% | 55% |
Wolverhampton | Midlands | 71% | 61% | 58% | 53% |
Worcester | Midlands | 80% | 52% | 61% | 65% |
Workington | North West | 70% | 44% | 60% | 70% |
Worle | South West | 82% | 77% | 81% | 55% |
Wrexham | Wales | 85% | 62% | 64% | 73% |
York | North East | 69% | 74% | 69% | 65% |
Social Security and Child Support - Percentage of hearings overturned in favour(4) of claimant by financial year and region, 2020/21 to 2023/24(2,3) | ||||
Region(6) | 2020/21 | 2021/22 | 2022/23 | 2023/24 |
London | 74% | 66% | 70% | 74% |
Midlands | 74% | 64% | 60% | 60% |
North East | 63% | 54% | 53% | 50% |
North West | 69% | 61% | 62% | 66% |
Scotland | 60% | 57% | 56% | 61% |
South East | 71% | 57% | 63% | 62% |
South West | 79% | 69% | 72% | 65% |
Wales | 78% | 69% | 70% | 68% |
Social Security and Child Support - Percentage of hearings overturned in favour(4) of claimant by financial year and UK nation, 2020/21 to 2023/24(2,3) | ||||
Nation | 2020/21 | 2021/22 | 2022/23 | 2023/24 |
England | 71% | 61% | 63% | 62% |
Scotland | 60% | 57% | 56% | 61% |
Wales | 78% | 69% | 70% | 68% |
Notes:
1. At venue level, some venues either did not record any cases disposed of at hearing in certain years or were closed for some of the years reported. These values are shown as '..' instead of a number.
2. From April 2023 the SSCS Tribunal started to list cases using a new Scheduling and Listing solution. This, alongside HMCTS migrating to a new Strategic Data Platform, has resulted in some cases heard and decided using this new listing solution not currently being included in the data above. Revised data will be published as soon as they are available.
3. Data are not available for Northern Ireland as appeals for Northern Ireland are administered by the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service.
4. Decisions in favour are those cases where the decision of the first-tier agency is revised in favour of the appellant.
5. Venues which did not record any hearings in the specified period have not been included in the data.
6. The regions to which the venues are attached are specific to this dataset and may not match other reports.
Asked by: Lord Kempsell (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether all venues where Social Security and Child Support Tribunal hearings are held are accessible.
Answered by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
Social Security and Child Support Tribunal facilities provide a wide range of accessibility features such as step free building access, audio hearing capability, video hearing capability, fixed or portable hearing loops, facilities accessible by wheelchair and rooms that allow line of sight between the Judge and wheelchair user.
While not every accessibility feature is available in every tribunal hearing room, we are committed to ensuring tribunals are accessible to all users and aim to list cases at suitable venues when there are access needs. If a user has a disability that means they cannot access HMCTS information and services, they can request reasonable adjustments by phone, in person or in writing. If a user needs support in the hearing room, HMCTS will also discuss this with the judge hearing the case. Judges are committed to making sure everyone can give their best evidence, and everyone has a fair hearing.
Asked by: Lord Kempsell (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government under what circumstances a member of the public would not be permitted to observe a Social Security and Child Support Tribunal hearing.
Answered by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
The question as to whether a member of the public would not be permitted to observe a Social Security and Child Support Tribunal hearing is a matter for the judiciary, after taking all the circumstances of the case into account, and in accordance with the Tribunal’s Procedure Rules.
The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008 state (at rule 30):
Public and private Hearings
30.—(1) Subject to the following paragraphs, all hearings must be held in public.
F1(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(3) The Tribunal may give a direction that a hearing, or part of it, is to be held in private.
[F2(3A) Without prejudice to paragraph (3), the Tribunal may direct that a hearing, or part of it, is to be held in private if—
(a) the Tribunal directs that the proceedings are to be conducted wholly or partly as video proceedings or audio proceedings;
(b) it is not reasonably practicable for such a hearing, or such part, to be accessed in a court or tribunal venue by persons who are not parties entitled to participate in the hearing;
(c) a media representative is not able to access the proceedings remotely while they are taking place; and
(d) such a direction is necessary to secure the proper administration of justice.]
(4) Where a hearing, or part of it, is to be held in private, the Tribunal may determine who is permitted to attend the hearing or part of it.
(5) The Tribunal may give a direction excluding from any hearing, or part of it—
(a) any person whose conduct the Tribunal considers is disrupting or is likely to disrupt the hearing;
(b) any person whose presence the Tribunal considers is likely to prevent another person from giving evidence or making submissions freely;
(c) any person who the Tribunal considers should be excluded in order to give effect to a direction under rule 14(2) (withholding information likely to cause harm); or
(d) any person where the purpose of the hearing would be defeated by the attendance of that person.
(6) The Tribunal may give a direction excluding a witness from a hearing until that witness gives evidence.
F1 Rule 30(2) omitted (27.12.2024) by virtue of The Tribunal Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2024 (S.I. 2024/1283), rules 1, 2(3)
F2 Rule 30(3A) inserted (temp.) (10.4.2020) by The Tribunal Procedure (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Rules 2020 (S.I. 2020/416), rules 1(2), 4(3)