Asked by: Mark Hendrick (Labour (Co-op) - Preston)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, if he will make it his policy to align Government policy with the EU’s higher air quality standards as part of the European Partnership Bill.
Answered by Nick Thomas-Symonds - Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office
The European Partnership Bill will provide the necessary powers to deliver treaties with the European Union now and in the future. Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill when it is introduced to Parliament in the usual way.
Asked by: Mark Hendrick (Labour (Co-op) - Preston)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, if the European Partnership Bill will include provisions on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) standards.
Answered by Nick Thomas-Symonds - Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office
The European Partnership Bill will provide the necessary powers to deliver treaties with the European Union now and in the future. Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill when it is introduced to Parliament in the usual way.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to increase the proportion of criminal trials that proceed as scheduled.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government inherited a justice system in crisis - with a record and rising Crown Court caseload and victims facing intolerable delays for justice. That is why the Government asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake an Independent Review of the Criminal Courts and make recommendations for how to restore stability and confidence in the criminal courts.
Sir Brian’s report set out a blueprint for pragmatic structural reform in our criminal courts and made clear that it is only by pulling every lever we have – investment, efficiency and reform – that we can we turn the tide on the backlog and begin to swifter justice for all. The Courts and Tribunals Bill is the first step to putting the reform blueprint into law.
We are currently considering Sir Brian’s remaining recommendations and will publish our full response in the summer. In the meantime, the Deputy Prime Minister has also announced several initial measures we are taking forward to drive efficiency, including supporting the judiciary to undertake ‘blitz courts’ (where courts list similar cases together over a short period of time – concentrating court resources and the expertise required), rolling out case coordinators in every Crown Court centre and supporting the Lady Chief Justice to publish the first ever National Listing Framework and pilot an AI Listing Assistant.
Alongside structural reforms and inefficiencies, we are also delivering record financial investment. We have uncapped Crown Court sitting days for 2026/27, which means there is no longer a financial limit on the amount of work the Crown Court can undertake; and we have announced additional funding of up to £34 million a year for criminal legal aid advocates and £92 million per year for criminal legal aid solicitor fee schemes.
Asked by: Liz Saville Roberts (Plaid Cymru - Dwyfor Meirionnydd)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what consideration she has given to alternative models that would allow some form of payment to Coastguard Rescue Officers while remaining compliant with employment law following the removal of hourly remuneration and intention to implement a revised volunteer model by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.
Answered by Keir Mather - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
A Court of Appeal ruling found that the current remuneration model could not legally continue.
Public safety remains our priority, and careful consideration was given to the options for a revised operating model. The legal position, the operational implications, and the wider organisational impact have all been looked at in detail, as well as the views of current Coastguard Rescue Officers (CRO). They were clear that serving their community was a major reason why they volunteer. Protecting volunteering preserves a valuable form of public service. The revised model protects choice, flexibility and the ability for people to serve alongside their primary employment.
As a result, the decision was made to move to a new model with expenses but no hourly remuneration. This will be implemented in September 2026.
Recruitment into membership of the CRS continues as it has previously. Alongside the Coastguard Rescue Service, HM Coastguard will continue to draw upon the full UK Search and Rescue system, including HM Coastguard aviation assets, RNLI and independent lifeboats, independent rescue teams, lifeguards and other emergency services as they do today.
Asked by: Liz Saville Roberts (Plaid Cymru - Dwyfor Meirionnydd)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what recent assessment has been made of the sustainability of HM Coastguard relying on approximately 3,000 volunteers receiving expenses only as a result of the removal of hourly remuneration and intention to implement a revised volunteer model by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.
Answered by Keir Mather - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)
A Court of Appeal ruling found that the current remuneration model could not legally continue.
Public safety remains our priority, and careful consideration was given to the options for a revised operating model. The legal position, the operational implications, and the wider organisational impact have all been looked at in detail, as well as the views of current Coastguard Rescue Officers (CRO). They were clear that serving their community was a major reason why they volunteer. Protecting volunteering preserves a valuable form of public service. The revised model protects choice, flexibility and the ability for people to serve alongside their primary employment.
As a result, the decision was made to move to a new model with expenses but no hourly remuneration. This will be implemented in September 2026.
Recruitment into membership of the CRS continues as it has previously. Alongside the Coastguard Rescue Service, HM Coastguard will continue to draw upon the full UK Search and Rescue system, including HM Coastguard aviation assets, RNLI and independent lifeboats, independent rescue teams, lifeguards and other emergency services as they do today.
Asked by: Ben Obese-Jecty (Conservative - Huntingdon)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what recent assessment she has made of the potential benefit to the UK of joining the proposed Defence, Security and Resilience Bank.
Answered by Lucy Rigby - Chief Secretary to the Treasury
The UK announced that it is exploring setting up the Multilateral Defence Mechanism with Finland, the Netherlands and other partners by 2027. This will be designed to improve value for money and increase standardisation in the defence sector through joint procurement. It will enhance collaboration among allies and improve interoperability. It will aim to increase the availability of munitions and other critical capabilities when we need them most and aim to support a more resilient and efficient defence industrial sector, underpinned by more certainty of orders from aggregated demand through joint procurement from its members.
The Chancellor regularly discusses with NATO allies the need to meet the challenge jointly of increasing expenditure on our defence and resilience.
Asked by: Ben Obese-Jecty (Conservative - Huntingdon)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what recent discussion has she has had with NATO-Partner countries on membership of the proposed Defence, Security and Resilience Bank.
Answered by Lucy Rigby - Chief Secretary to the Treasury
The UK announced that it is exploring setting up the Multilateral Defence Mechanism with Finland, the Netherlands and other partners by 2027. This will be designed to improve value for money and increase standardisation in the defence sector through joint procurement. It will enhance collaboration among allies and improve interoperability. It will aim to increase the availability of munitions and other critical capabilities when we need them most and aim to support a more resilient and efficient defence industrial sector, underpinned by more certainty of orders from aggregated demand through joint procurement from its members.
The Chancellor regularly discusses with NATO allies the need to meet the challenge jointly of increasing expenditure on our defence and resilience.
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.