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 received a positive direction from the Parole Board for (a) release and (b) transfer to open conditions following a recall 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: 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 received a positive direction from the Parole Board for (a) release and (b) transfer to open conditions following a recall to custody 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: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool Riverside)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of Parole Board hearings relating to people serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection who had been 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: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool Riverside)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were in prison on recall on 30 April 2026.
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: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool Riverside)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether the interventions available to unreleased prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection differ from those available to other prisoners serving such sentences.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
There are a range of interventions aimed at reducing reoffending and aiding resettlement into the community. These are allocated on an individual basis. Those working with prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) will identify what interventions or services will be most suitable, based on the presenting need.
A small number of initiatives are designed specifically, or primarily, for IPP prisoners. These are not necessarily formal interventions, but they provide holistic, therapeutic services and unit-based approaches, aimed at increasing hope and reducing feelings of dejection, in order to increase insight, and improve relationships and engagement. Examples include the progression regimes currently in four prisons across the estate, and the Midlands Therapeutic Service.
Asked by: Andrew Rosindell (Reform UK - Romford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether there are additional sitting hours for first tier tribunals after 1 May 2026.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice confirmed in February 2026 the sitting day allocations and funding envelope for His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service for the period 2025-26 to 2028-29, including high allocations for the First Tier Tribunals: Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Day Allocations - Hansard - UK Parliament.
The Ministry of Justice has and continues to work closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) has the capacity to manage demand following commencement of the Renters’ Rights Act on 1 May 2026. This includes provision of sufficient sitting days to deal with increased case volumes.
Asked by: Andrew Rosindell (Reform UK - Romford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has made an assessment of reducing the qualification time for people to sit on a first tier tribunal.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Judges of the First-Tier Tribunal are required by statute (the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007) to have a specific legal qualification and appropriate legal experience. This must be five years’ post qualification experience (PQE), with a minimum of 20% of each year devoted to law-related activity. These statutory requirements help to safeguard judicial standards by ensuring that judges have the appropriate knowledge and skills to be able to apply the law fairly and effectively. Most candidates have significantly more than the minimum PQE when they apply.
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.