Asked by: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool Riverside)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of people serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection were recalled to custody having not committed a further offence in each of the last three reporting years.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The power to recall is a vital public protection measure. Where an offender serving an IPP sentence is recalled to custody, it is because the Probation Service has assessed that the offender’s risk has escalated to the point where the offender may no longer be safely managed in the community and has evidence that the offender’s behaviour is similar to the behaviour at the time of the offending which attracted the IPP sentence. This means that an IPP offender does not have to have committed a further offence to be recalled.
Successive thematic reviews conducted by HM Chief Inspector of Probation have found that the Probation Service is using recall appropriately and for public protection purposes.
Table 1: Number and Proportion of IPP Recalls Not Involving a Charge for a Further Offence, 2023-2025 [note 1]
Category | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
Number not facing further charge | 463 | 449 | 329 |
Proportion not facing further charge | 70% | 73% | 77% |
With regards to the cost of Parole Board hearings relating to people serving an IPP sentence who had been recalled to custody having not committed a further offence, the data are not routinely available to provide a reasonable estimate, and the work to collate it could not be completed without incurring disproportionate costs.
Table 3: Number and proportion of Parole Board IPP recall review outcomes of release and open conditions from completed cases, 2022/23 to 2024/25 [note 2] [note 3]
Review Outcome | 2022/23 | 2023/24 | 2024/25 |
Open | 18 | 23 | 33 |
Release | 294 | 426 | 405 |
Open proportion of completed cases | 4% | 3% | 5% |
Release proportion of completed cases | 61% | 63% | 60% |
Table 4: Number and proportion of Parole Board IPP recall review outcomes of release and open conditions from completed cases, where the offender was not facing a charge for a further offence, 2022/23 to 2024/25 [note 2] [note 3] [note 4]
Review Outcome | 2022/23 | 2023/24 | 2024/25 |
Open | 15 | 22 | 25 |
Release | 207 | 329 | 296 |
Open proportion of completed cases | 5% | 5% | 5% |
Release proportion of completed cases | 65% | 68% | 63% |
We may not disclose the number of recalled IPP prisoners in custody as of 30 April 2026 as the data are a subset of data scheduled to be published at the end of July.
Table notes:
[note 1] The proportions are of total number of IPP recalls. An offender can be recalled multiple times in a year or across years.
[note 2] The outcomes are the final outcomes of each review and do not include intermediate decisions that were subsequently remade such as through reconsideration mechanism.
[note 3] Completed cases are cases that resulted in one of release, knockback and open conditions.
[note 4] Offenders not facing a charge of further offence are those who were not facing a charge of further offence at the point of their recall prior to the recall review.
Asked by: John Hayes (Conservative - South Holland and The Deepings)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what steps his department is taking to support increased participation in higher apprenticeships among young people in South Holland and the Deepings constituency.
Answered by Andrew Western - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)
This Government is transforming the Apprenticeships Levy into a new Growth and Skills Levy in England, backed by £1 billion of additional investment, which will support 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships and give employers, including in South Holland and the Deepings, greater flexibility to develop the workforce they need to grow and succeed.
To support non-levy paying employers (typically SMEs) to meet the additional costs associated with employing young apprentices, we are introducing a new apprenticeship hiring payment of £2,000 when they take on eligible 16–24-year-old apprentices, at all levels, as new employees.
Additionally, the government will fully fund apprenticeship training for non-levy paying employers for all eligible young people aged under 25 from the next academic year, to boost small business starts. At the moment, this only happens for apprentices aged 16 to 21 and apprentices aged 22-24 who have an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) or have been, or are, in local authority care.
We also provide £1,000 to both employers and training providers when they take on apprentices aged under 19, or 19-to-24-year-old apprentices who have an EHCP or have been, or are, in care.
The government also facilitates and funds the Apprenticeship Ambassador Network (AAN) which comprises over 3,000 employers and apprentices who volunteer to promote the benefits of apprenticeships. It operates across all parts of England, including in Lincolnshire, through nine regional networks. These networks provide buddying and mentoring support to small businesses to help them recruit and retain apprentices.
For young people, aged 16-24, on Universal Credit who are looking for work, we are also introducing a new Youth Guarantee Journey. As part of the journey, every young person will be provided with tailored employment support and a structured path into a job, apprenticeship, work experience, SWAP, learning or training from their first appointment in the Jobcentre. This support can also be delivered at a Youth Hub.
Over the next three years we are establishing Youth Hubs in over 360 locations so that all young people – including those not on benefits – can access opportunities and wider support in every local area of Great Britain. Youth Hubs will bring together partners from health, skills and the voluntary sector, working closely with Mayors and local authorities to deliver joined-up community-based support. Young people in areas where Youth Hubs will open later in the three year period will still receive the full breadth of Youth Guarantee support.
Asked by: Jas Athwal (Labour - Ilford South)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, which major Government datasets do not permit the identification of Sikhs as a distinct ethnic group.
Answered by Nesil Caliskan - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
The GSS ethnicity harmonised standard helps to make statistics and data more comparable, consistent and coherent. MHCLG collects data in line with the ethnicity harmonised standard, which is developed by the independent Office for National Statistics.
I recognise that, for some Sikhs, ethnicity recognition is an important issue. Whilst the current harmonised standard for ethnicity does not include “Sikh” as a specific ethnic group response option, datasets collected using this standard may still capture Sikh ethnicity through write-in responses within the ethnic group question.
A review of the harmonised standard for ethnicity data collection is underway by the Government Statistical Service Harmonisation team.
A public consultation between October 2025 and February 2026 sought views from a wide range of users, including Government Departments and public bodies, to understand user needs for ethnic group data. MHCLG officials have engaged with the GSS harmonisation team over the course of the review to understand the impact of ethnicity data collection on government policy.
ONS will be providing a full report on the consultation in late summer 2026.
Asked by: Jonathan Davies (Labour - Mid Derbyshire)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what support his Department is offering to protect businesses from tariffs where it is not possible to source steel products domestically in the context of the Steel Trade Measures.
Answered by Chris McDonald - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)
The measure has been designed to strike a balance between securing domestic steelmaking while maintaining secure supply for downstream users.
It is designed to only cover requirements that can be met in the UK. Where not feasible for technical reasons, quotas have been designed to allow for sufficient imports to be available to downstream users.
To ease short-term impacts, we are introducing a transitional arrangement under which the new measure would not apply to goods agreed under contract before 14 March 2026 and imported between 1 July and 30 September 2026. Further details are available on GOV.UK.
Asked by: Alex Mayer (Labour - Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether an agreement has been made between her Department and Universal Destinations and Experiences on transport links for workers during the construction of the Universal Theme Park in Bedfordshire.
Answered by Simon Lightwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
The Department has not entered a specific agreement with Universal Destinations and Experiences (UDX) regarding transport links for construction workers. The Department is, however, working closely with UDX, Bedford Borough Council and other local partners to support the transport arrangements associated with the development. This includes ongoing consideration of how construction workers can access the site safely and efficiently through the construction phase, including by public transport and other sustainable travel options where appropriate.
Asked by: Ian Sollom (Liberal Democrat - St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when her department will begin to engage with local highways authorities ahead of reviewing the highways capital funding formula ahead of the 2030/31 financial year.
Answered by Simon Lightwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
The Department engages regularly with local highway authorities and sector bodies to support the maintenance and renewal of the local road network.
The review of the funding formula will be conducted to align with the end of the period for which highways maintenance block allocations have already been made; formal engagement with local highway authorities will commence ahead of this.
Asked by: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool Riverside)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of recommendations made by Local Advisory Panels to downgrade prisoners from Category A status were (a) agreed by the Category A Review Team, (b) approved by senior decision-makers within the High Security function and (c) not approved in each of the last ten years.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Prisoners held as Category A / Restricted Status are subject to a structured review process, with a formal review after two years and annually thereafter. These reviews are informed by progress reports and considered by a Local Advisory Panel (LAP), which makes recommendations to the Category A Team. Where continued Category A status is recommended and agreed, reviews may be completed without escalation, though all cases are referred to the Executive Director at least every five years. Only the Executive Director (or delegated authority) may approve downgrades, in line with Prison Service Instruction (PSI) 08/2013, The review of security category – category A / restricted status prisoners.
The Category A Team conducts around 850 reviews each year (909 in 2025). Approximately one third involve legal representation, in which cases requests for oral hearings are routinely made.
Between 2016 and 2025, there were an estimated 3,046 requests for an oral hearing, including 246 formal pre-action requests. Over the same period, the Executive Director granted 39 oral hearings. All LAP recommendations to downgrade are referred directly to the Executive Director for decision. Between 2016 and 2025, annual LAP recommendations ranged from 44 to 111, with approvals ranging from 18 to 58.
More detailed breakdowns cannot be provided without manually reviewing approximately 8,500 individual decisions, which would exceed the disproportionate cost threshold.
Asked by: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool Riverside)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many requests were (a) made, (b) granted and (c) refused for Category A oral hearings in each of the last ten years.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Prisoners held as Category A / Restricted Status are subject to a structured review process, with a formal review after two years and annually thereafter. These reviews are informed by progress reports and considered by a Local Advisory Panel (LAP), which makes recommendations to the Category A Team. Where continued Category A status is recommended and agreed, reviews may be completed without escalation, though all cases are referred to the Executive Director at least every five years. Only the Executive Director (or delegated authority) may approve downgrades, in line with Prison Service Instruction (PSI) 08/2013, The review of security category – category A / restricted status prisoners.
The Category A Team conducts around 850 reviews each year (909 in 2025). Approximately one third involve legal representation, in which cases requests for oral hearings are routinely made.
Between 2016 and 2025, there were an estimated 3,046 requests for an oral hearing, including 246 formal pre-action requests. Over the same period, the Executive Director granted 39 oral hearings. All LAP recommendations to downgrade are referred directly to the Executive Director for decision. Between 2016 and 2025, annual LAP recommendations ranged from 44 to 111, with approvals ranging from 18 to 58.
More detailed breakdowns cannot be provided without manually reviewing approximately 8,500 individual decisions, which would exceed the disproportionate cost threshold.
Asked by: Ben Obese-Jecty (Conservative - Huntingdon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 29 May 2026 to Question 3026 on Men, if he will list the key sector partners he plans to invite to the National Summit on Men and Boys.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Prime Minister committed to holding a National Summit on Men and Boys in 2026 to bring together key sector partners and Government, to raise awareness and develop plans to tackle issues facing Men and Boys. He asked the Deputy Prime Minister to lead this work.
By convening Departments and partners under the Deputy Prime Minister’s leadership, we can ensure a joined-up approach that delivers meaningful, measurable impact.
We have not yet set an invitation list for the Men and Boys Summit but will be seeking to convene a wide range of stakeholders – including from businesses, charities, and other relevant organisations.
Asked by: Toby Perkins (Labour - Chesterfield)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what proportion of East Midlands Railways trains from a) Sheffield to London and b) London to Sheffield have been i) on time, ii) less than fifteen minutes late, iii) 15-30 minutes late, iv) 30-59 minutes late, v) over 59 minutes late and vi) cancelled in each year between 2022 and 2026.
Answered by Keir Mather - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
The tables below show the proportion of East Midlands Railway’s (EMR) trains from:
a) Sheffield to London trains that were i) on time, ii) less than fifteen minutes late, iii) 15-30 minutes late, iv) 30-59 minutes late, v) over 59 minutes late and vi) cancelled in each year between 2022 and 2026; and
b) London to Sheffield have been i) on time, ii) less than fifteen minutes late, iii) 15-30 minutes late, iv) 30-59 minutes late, v) over 59 minutes late and vi) cancelled in each year between 2022 and 2026.
(2026 has not been included as we do not have the comparable full year data)
From Sheffield
Year | On Time | <15 Late | 15-30 | 30-59 | >59 | Cancelled |
2022 | 40.4% | 90.8% | 7.4% | 1.4% | 0.4% | 2.5% |
2023 | 43.2% | 90.2% | 8.4% | 1.2% | 0.2% | 2.9% |
2024 | 38.1% | 88.5% | 9.3% | 1.8% | 0.3% | 2.6% |
2025 | 39.9% | 88.1% | 9.8% | 1.7% | 0.3% | 2.9% |
From London
Year | On Time | <15 Late | 15-30 | 30-59 | >59 | Cancelled |
2022 | 31.0% | 89.7% | 8.4% | 1.7% | 0.3% | 2.4% |
2023 | 29.1% | 88.7% | 9.9% | 1.3% | 0.1% | 2.6% |
2024 | 25.2% | 87.6% | 10.4% | 1.7% | 0.2% | 2.5% |
2025 | 30.2% | 89.5% | 8.7% | 1.5% | 0.2% | 2.9% |