The changes to early release were necessary because the Government inherited a prison system that was days from collapse. We had no choice but to take decisive action to stop our prisons overflowing and keep the public safe. The Sentencing Act 2026 will deliver a more sustainable solution to the prison capacity crisis including through the progression model which will help ensure there are always enough places for the courts to be able to send people to custody to keep the public safe.

The progression model amends the release points for offenders serving Standard Determinate Sentences only. The more serious offenders deemed dangerous by the courts and serving parole-eligible sentences including Extended Determinate Sentences or life sentences are unaffected. In all parole-eligible cases, the court prescribes a minimum period that the offender must spend in custody as punishment after which they become eligible to be considered for release on licence. They will only be released if the independent Parole Board for England and Wales is satisfied that they no longer need to be detained for the protection of the public.

Prisoners released under the progression model, and all those released by the Parole Board, are subject to strict licence conditions and are liable to be recalled to custody by the Probation Service if they breach the terms of their licence.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

Prisoners serving a determinate sentence are usually released automatically at a point fixed by legislation relating to their sentence. In contrast, indeterminate sentenced prisoners can only be released by the Parole Board after the expiry of their tariff. They must serve a minimum term, in full, in prison, at the end of which they can only be released if the independent Parole Board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public for the offender to be confined. Therefore, introducing release dates fixed by the Parole Board would primarily affect indeterminate sentences.

In accordance with legislation, an indeterminate sentenced prisoner must have a parole review to consider whether the release test is met and if not, to confirm further detention. Reviews take place just prior to tariff expiry and then at least every two years thereafter. The setting of fixed release dates would not be compatible with the need for release to be based on the current risk posed by offenders and whether they could be managed safely if released into the community on licence.

During the passage of the Sentencing Act 2026, the House of Lords voted against an amendment to legislate for the Parole Board to fix a future release date for IPP prisoners.

What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of Parole Board hearings on victims and their families.

My hon. Friend is a fine champion for her constituency, and has raised this case with both me and other Ministers on numerous occasions. Baroness Levitt, who is responsible for Parole Board hearings, will meet Ralph Bulger and his legal advisers this afternoon to discuss this very issue, and I am sure she will be able to offer some more substantive answers to my hon. Friend’s constituent’s question. I put on record my thanks to Ralph for his campaign, and am very happy to meet him or anyone else on this issue in due course.

Members of James Bulger’s family are my constituents, and they are yet again facing the agony of another parole hearing for Jon Venables, an ordeal that continues to retraumatise them more than 30 years after James’s horrific murder. While Parole Board decisions are rightly independent, the system must command public confidence, so will the Minister give the Parole Board an overarching assessment of Venables’ current risk and tell the House what reviews of the automatic two-year parole hearing cycle are being considered?

As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, I am unable to talk about the specifics of that case, but if she writes to me, I will make sure I get back to her with any details I am able to share.

There is an 82-year-old man who has been in prison for 38 years. He was convicted of murder, and the trial judge in 1989 said that this was “not a violent process” and gave him a life sentence with a 15-year tariff, which expired over 22 years ago. He is repeatedly described as an exemplary prisoner. Because he has maintained his innocence over the past 38 years, he has not attended the prerequisite courses that would require an acceptance of guilt, so the Parole Board assesses his risk to the public if he is released as “unmanageable”, which seems ludicrous. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the Parole Board’s repeated response to this situation and whether there should be some sort of system for those who maintain their innocence for a great number of years?

We recognise that parole hearings can be traumatic for victims, and victim liaison officers can support them throughout the process. We are launching a victims’ code consultation, which will also give victims the opportunity to provide input as to what more can be done.