Asked by: Mike Wood (Conservative - Kingswinford and South Staffordshire)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, with reference to the Answer of 2 March 2026 to Question 113919 on Equality: Gender and Intersex, what the timetable is for the Gender Identity and Intersex Policy Package review following the publication of the Equality Act 2010: Draft Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations.
Answered by Satvir Kaur - Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office)
New model Policy and Guidance: Supporting Trans and Non-binary Employees was issued to departments on 22 May 2026. These may be used by departments as templates for their own departmental guidance.
Asked by: Andrew Snowden (Conservative - Fylde)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, how many retail, hospitality and leisure businesses have ceased trading in Fylde constituency and Lancashire since April 2025.
Answered by Satvir Kaur - Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office)
The information requested falls under the remit of the UK Statistics Authority.
A response to the Hon gentleman’s Parliamentary Question of 2nd June is attached.
Asked by: Katrina Murray (Labour - Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what proportion of the Net Migrant figure was accounted for by international students in each year over the last 5 years.
Answered by Satvir Kaur - Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office)
The information requested falls under the remit of the UK Statistics Authority.
A response to the lady’s Parliamentary Question of 20th May is attached.
Asked by: Andrew Snowden (Conservative - Fylde)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what comparative assessment has been made of the potential impact of consolidation of operations under Great British Railways compared with the previous franchising model on (a) operational competition and (b) innovation.
Answered by Keir Mather - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
This Government was elected on a clear manifesto commitment to return franchised passenger services to public ownership. Public ownership, as delivered through the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, is an important first step towards making the railway run better, with the whole system working to one set of clear objectives.
The Railways Bill delivers the next phase of rail reform, establishing Great British Railways (GBR) to run both track and train, thus ending the fragmentation that currently exists between Network Rail and train operating companies which is inefficient and drives down performance.
GBR will support a competitive private sector. Open access will continue to play an important role on the network where it genuinely adds value that benefits the public and aligns with the overall strategy for growth on our railways. Freight operations will remain in the private sector and will benefit from a statutory freight growth target. GBR will provide greater longer-term certainty for rail that gives investors' confidence, thus supporting innovation throughout the sector. Further detail can be found in the Impact Assessments for both pieces of legislation, including the analysis that neither public ownership nor GBR is expected to materially reduce competition in terms of operating passenger services, given competition was already limited under the franchising model.
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% |
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: 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: Euan Stainbank (Labour - Falkirk)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment she has made of the potential impact of an increase in the SCAPE discount rate on police officers in the 1987 Police Pension Scheme.
Answered by Lucy Rigby - Chief Secretary to the Treasury
In line with the existing methodology, the Government announced on 19 May 2026 that the SCAPE discount rate is 2%+CPI.
HM Treasury is not the responsible authority for individual Public Service Pension Schemes. Regulation B7 of the Police Pension Scheme Regulations 1987 provides for commutation of pension to purchase lump sum and specifies that the rate is that set out by the Scheme Actuary. The factors were updated on 21 May 2026 to reflect the change to the SCAPE discount rate.
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.