Written questions by Lowe.

Food and Rural Affairs, which local stakeholders were involved or consulted in the development of Shoreline Management Plan 6, Policy Unit 6.14, including the Winterton‑on‑Sea to Scratby coastline, and what forms that engagement took.

Kelling Hard to Lowestoft Shoreline Management Plan (SMP6), covering Winterton-on-Sea to Scratby, was adopted by Great Yarmouth Borough Council (GYBC) in 2012. The plan was developed locally by the East Anglia Coastal Group; led by North Norfolk District Council, with GYBC, Waveney District Council (now East Suffolk), the Environment Agency and Natural England. Local stakeholder engagement was undertaken through a formal public consultation, which invited local residents, businesses, parish councils, key organisations and other interested parties to comment on the long‑term shoreline management proposals. This was supported by public exhibitions, enabling direct discussion with local authority and Environment Agency officers, and by targeted presentations delivered to parish council representatives and local businesses. Full details of the stakeholder engagement undertaken can be found in Appendix B of the published document. Ref: Kelling Hard to Lowestoft SMP6 | Shoreline Management Plans.

Food and Rural Affairs, whether she will publish any cost‑benefit analyses prepared in relation to managed realignment options under Shoreline Management Plan 6 for the Winterton‑on‑Sea to Scratby coastline within Policy Unit 6.14.

The Kelling Hard to Lowestoft Shoreline Management Plan (SMP6), covering Winterton-on-Sea to Scratby, was adopted by Great Yarmouth Borough Council (GYBC) in 2012. The plan was developed by a partnership led by North Norfolk District Council, with GYBC, Waveney District Council (now East Suffolk), the Environment Agency (EA) and Natural England. High-level economic appraisal informed policy development and is published within the plan and Appendix H. GYBC is the Risk Management Authority for the erodible coast between Winterton-on-Sea and Scratby, including Hemsby, and is best placed to carry out detailed assessments of coastal risk management options, costs and benefits using local knowledge and data. In 2018, GYBC published a high-level review of options for managing coastal erosion at Hemsby. The EA recognises the technical and economic challenges associated with providing coastal protection at Hemsby.

Food and Rural Affairs, whether there are plans to review the policy approach for Policy Unit 6.14 under Shoreline Management Plan 6, including the Winterton‑on‑Sea to Scratby coastline.

The Kelling Hard to Lowestoft Shoreline Management Plan (SMP6), covering Winterton-on-Sea to Scratby, was adopted by Great Yarmouth Borough Council (GYBC) in 2012. The plan was developed by a partnership led by North Norfolk District Council, with GYBC, Waveney District Council (now East Suffolk), the Environment Agency (EA) and Natural England. High-level economic appraisal informed policy development and is published within the plan and Appendix H. GYBC is the Risk Management Authority for the erodible coast between Winterton-on-Sea and Scratby, including Hemsby, and is best placed to carry out detailed assessments of coastal risk management options, costs and benefits using local knowledge and data. In 2018, GYBC published a high-level review of options for managing coastal erosion at Hemsby. The EA recognises the technical and economic challenges associated with providing coastal protection at Hemsby.

Food and Rural Affairs, whether the evidence base, appraisal assumptions, and analytical workings used to inform decisions on Policy Unit 6.14 under Shoreline Management Plan 6 will be made publicly available.

The Kelling Hard to Lowestoft Shoreline Management Plan (SMP6), covering Winterton-on-Sea to Scratby, was adopted by Great Yarmouth Borough Council (GYBC) in 2012. The plan was developed by a partnership led by North Norfolk District Council, with GYBC, Waveney District Council (now East Suffolk), the Environment Agency (EA) and Natural England. High-level economic appraisal informed policy development and is published within the plan and Appendix H. GYBC is the Risk Management Authority for the erodible coast between Winterton-on-Sea and Scratby, including Hemsby, and is best placed to carry out detailed assessments of coastal risk management options, costs and benefits using local knowledge and data. In 2018, GYBC published a high-level review of options for managing coastal erosion at Hemsby. The EA recognises the technical and economic challenges associated with providing coastal protection at Hemsby.

Food and Rural Affairs, what cost‑benefit analyses or appraisal work were undertaken in support of the policy approach for Policy Unit 6.14 under Shoreline Management Plan 6, and to what extent the views of local residents and businesses were considered and weighted within those assessments.

The Kelling Hard to Lowestoft Shoreline Management Plan (SMP6), covering Winterton-on-Sea to Scratby, was adopted by Great Yarmouth Borough Council (GYBC) in 2012. The plan was developed locally by the East Anglia Coastal Group; led by North Norfolk District Council, with GYBC, Waveney District Council (now East Suffolk), the Environment Agency and Natural England, and included local consultation. High-level economic appraisal informed policy development and is published within the plan and Appendix H. Full details of the stakeholder engagement undertaken can be found in Appendix B of the published document. Ref: Kelling Hard to Lowestoft SMP6 | Shoreline Management Plans.

Food and Rural Affairs, whether cost‑benefit analyses for managed realignment on the Winterton‑on‑Sea to Scratby coastline within Policy Unit 6.14 include consideration of social, health, and community impacts on affected residents, in addition to economic and environmental factors.

The Kelling Hard to Lowestoft Shoreline Management Plan (SMP6), covering Winterton-on-Sea to Scratby, was adopted by Great Yarmouth Borough Council (GYBC) in 2012. The plan was developed by a partnership led by North Norfolk District Council, with GYBC, Waveney District Council (now East Suffolk), the Environment Agency (EA) and Natural England. High-level economic appraisal informed policy development and is published within the plan and Appendix H. GYBC is the Risk Management Authority for the erodible coast between Winterton-on-Sea and Scratby, including Hemsby, and is best placed to carry out detailed assessments of coastal risk management options, costs and benefits using local knowledge and data. In 2018, GYBC published a high-level review of options for managing coastal erosion at Hemsby. The EA recognises the technical and economic challenges associated with providing coastal protection at Hemsby.

Food and Rural Affairs, what support is available to residents whose homes are lost to coastal erosion where long‑term defence is not viable.

We are committed to supporting coastal communities and ensuring coastal risk management is fit for the challenges we face now and in the future. That is why, in January, we announced the £30 million Coastal Adaptation Pilots. Up to £18 million of this will be shared across projects in the East Riding of Yorkshire, Norfolk, and Suffolk supporting advanced adaptation work, including selective property purchases and long-term financing solutions. The Environment Agency will continue to work closely with Great Yarmouth Borough Council to prepare for delivery from Winter 2026. A Coastal Erosion Assistance Grant of £6,000 per property is also available for local authorities to support the prompt and safe demolition of homes at greatest risk of loss from erosion. In exceptional circumstances, supported by strong evidence, a local authority may make a case for a higher level of grant support. In addition, local authorities are responsible for providing homelessness assistance and temporary accommodation in some circumstances.

Communities and Local Government, whether his Department is engaging with insurers and mortgage lenders regarding coastal erosion risks in places such as Hemsby.

My Department engages regularly with mortgage lenders in relation to a range of issues affecting housing and home ownership. We also engage regularly with the insurance industry and continue to monitor the impacts of climate and environmental risks on the insurance market. A wide variety of mortgage products are available in the UK and speaking to a broker can help borrowers to find suitable products, including specialised financing to secure a mortgage in areas deemed higher risk by lenders, such as those affected by coastal erosion.

Communities and Local Government, what assessment has been made of the potential impact of coastal erosion at Hemsby on property insurance and mortgage availability.

My Department engages regularly with mortgage lenders in relation to a range of issues affecting housing and home ownership. We also engage regularly with the insurance industry and continue to monitor the impacts of climate and environmental risks on the insurance market. A wide variety of mortgage products are available in the UK and speaking to a broker can help borrowers to find suitable products, including specialised financing to secure a mortgage in areas deemed higher risk by lenders, such as those affected by coastal erosion.

Communities and Local Government, what assessment his Department has made of adequacy of cross‑government preparedness to address the social and housing impacts of coastal erosion.

The government recognises coastal erosion as a long‑term risk to some communities. Local preparedness is coordinated through Local Resilience Forums, supported by national assessments of flood and coastal erosion risk and by investment in flood and coastal risk management projects that improve long‑term resilience, including to coastal erosion. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) contains robust policies on managing development in areas affected by coastal erosion. Between 16 December 2025 and 10 March 2026, the government consulted on a new NPPF. The consultation on the revised Framework, which can be found on gov.uk here, included proposals to further strengthen policy in respect of this matter. We are currently analysing the feedback received and will publish our response in due course.

What contingency plans her Department has to ensure repayments for standard student loans and the Alternative Student Finance model remain equivalent if repayment outcomes diverge.

It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.

What estimate her Department has made of the potential cost to the public purse of (a) maintaining, (b) reviewing and (c) administering the Alternative Student Finance model, including advisory services, system maintenance, compliance monitoring and equivalence assurance.

It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.

What assessment she has made of the adequacy of law and statutory guidance to ensure that safeguarding, youth justice and mental health agencies can share relevant risk information without parental consent where necessary to protect public safety and prevent serious harm; and whether she plans to (a) clarify and (b) strengthen information sharing powers in such cases.

Where existing statutory frameworks underpin safeguarding processes, there is no requirement for parents or carers to co-operate. However, parental or carer consent is not required for agencies to share information relating to safeguarding and child protection. This is set out in Department for Education guidance on information sharing for safeguarding practitioners.Government is making this even clearer through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which includes a new Information Sharing Duty for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children, and will be accompanied by statutory guidance to support frontline practitioners to understand their responsibilities.Where a safeguarding concern has been identified relating to a child or young person, or there is suspected criminality relating to knife-related violence, multi-agency and law-enforcement partners can share information and conduct investigations without the consent of the relevant parent or guardian.In relation to Youth Justice processes, there are legal obligations that can be placed on parents and carers, to ensure that any risk relating to a minor can be appropriately managed. A court can issue a Parenting Order in a number of different circumstances, where children are engaged in criminal or antisocial behaviour. Parenting Orders require the parent or guardian to attend counselling or parenting support sessions and comply with other requirements the court considers necessary. Non-compliance can lead to breach proceedings in court and is punishable with a fine.Criminal orders that are placed on a child or young person themselves are applied by the court and generally (with few exceptions) parental or carer consent is not required.Where there are concerns that a child or young person is involved in criminality, and to protect public safety and prevent harm, the police will take forward their enquiries as appropriate, and parental or carer cooperation is not required to share information, conduct an investigation, place a minor under caution, or charge a minor with a criminal offence.The law already provides significant stop and search and wider enforcement powers, enabling police to disrupt immediate risk and remove weapons from the streets, including without the need for reasonable suspicion. Police can also arrest suspects, seize weapons, and evidence, and conduct searches of persons and premises where legal thresholds are met. These powers apply to children as well as adults. Where these powers are used on children, they are subject to additional statutory safeguards under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and its Codes of Practice to protect welfare and ensure proportionality.The Southport Inquiry Phase 1 report, published on 13 April, considers in detail the actions of the perpetrator’s parents and many of the issues raised here. The Chair has rightly raised the challenging question of how to minimise the risk that parents may choose not to co-operate or report concerns to safeguarding agencies such as social care or healthcare, or the police about their child having knives or other weapons, and has made two recommendations relevant to parents.In relation to future changes to strengthen oversight and powers, Government is considering these recommendations alongside the others in the report and will respond by summer 2026.

Whether her Department plans to maintain ongoing engagement with Islamic finance advisory bodies to review the continued sharia compliance of the Alternative Student Finance model.

Details of the department's previous engagements may be accessed on GOV.UK’s ‘Contracts Finder’ tool, which is available at: https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Search.Details of any future commercial engagements, including contracts, will be published on GOV.UK in line with standard arrangements.

What assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of talking-therapy-based interventions for young people previously charged with violent offences involving (a) weapons and (b) bladed articles known to (i) mental health and (ii) youth justice services as presenting a risk of serious violence.

The Department recognises the importance of ensuring that effective, evidence-based support is available for young people with mental health needs who present a risk of serious violence.The Department has not made a separate or specific assessment of the effectiveness of talking therapies for the highly specific cohort described. However, there is strong evidence that talking-therapy-based interventions, including cognitive behavioural therapy, are effective in improving mental health outcomes for children and young people. In the first 12 months of the Government, nearly 40,000 more children and young people received mental health support compared to the previous 12 months. We are also rolling out Mental Health Support Teams in schools and colleges in England to reach full national coverage by 2029.Where someone has a mental disorder and there is a risk of harm to themselves or others, the triaging of their need will result in prioritised access to assessment and treatment. If a person with a mental disorder is seen as a significant risk of violence to others, this would increase the priority given. NHS England has shared new draft guidance with systems, the Mental Health Personalised Care Framework, which sets out how services must effectively assess, plan, and manage people's care in collaboration with all relevant teams, including how they assess safety and risks of harm.

What proportion of private‑law children cases in the last five years involved Cafcass recommending a temporary pause or restriction on a father’s contact with his child following an allegation of domestic abuse before the completion of any investigative fact‑finding process.

Cafcass does not record structured data in its case management system to enable the identification of the proportion of private-law children's cases in which a recommendation was made to pause or restrict a father’s contact following an allegation of domestic abuse prior to the completion of fact-finding proceedings. This information is not recorded centrally, and the data would only be available from individual case file review at a disproportionate cost.The Cafcass safeguarding and domestic abuse policies are clear that where existing contact arrangements are considered unsafe for children, advice will be given to the court that the contact ceases whilst an assessment of harm and risk of further harm is considered as part of the safeguarding and/or work after the first hearing.

Whether her Department plans to publish annual data comparing repayment outcomes under the Alternative Student Finance model and the standard student loan system; and if she will make an estimate of the cost of producing such data.

It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.

What assessment she has made of the adequacy of laws to address cases in which parents or carers intentionally conceal, obscure, or fail to disclose a child’s procurement or possession of knives or other prohibited weapons.

There is no existing standalone legal duty to compel a parent, carer or any other bystander to report any criminality, including the procurement or possession of knives and weapons.Where parents are unable or unwilling to respond to potential safeguarding risk relating to knives, the strength of the system around the child (including schools, children’s services, police and youth justice) is vital in spotting concerns and linking children to support.The Government keeps legislation around knives under constant review. We are clear that knives should not be sold to those under 18 and measures in the Crime and Policing Bill (currently going through Parliament) are strengthening the legislation in this area by introducing a new two-step age verification process for online sale and delivery of knives. This will require buyers to provide a copy of their identification document, alongside a current photo, which will be verified at the point of sale and on delivery. It will be unlawful to deliver a parcel containing a knife to anyone except the verified buyer or to leave it on the doorstep or with a neighbour.We are also creating a new offence of possessing a knife with the intention to commit unlawful violence, a duty on sellers to report bulk sales, and giving the police a new power to seize knives when they believe they are likely to be used in connection with unlawful violence. Additionally, measures are being introduced to provide the police with the power to require social media, marketplaces, and search services to take down content about illegal knives and offensive weapons.In relation to bringing forward new legislation, the Chair of the Southport Inquiry recommended that the Law Commission review the merits of legal reform to introduce a legal duty on specified categories of person to report the criminality of another person. The Government will provide a full response to the recommendations from the Phase 1 report by the summer 2026.

To publish a list of all external organisations, including women’s, men’s, and specialist advocacy groups, that received funding, consultancy fees, or formal engagement contracts during the development of revised domestic‑abuse guidance and safeguarding processes in private‑law children cases; and to set out the total expenditure associated with this work.

Under this Government the Ministry of Justice has not provided funding, paid consultancy fees, or entered into formal engagement contracts with external organisations in developing revised domestic abuse guidance or safeguarding processes in private law children cases.

Whether she plans to review current guidance and training to ensure that equality considerations do not inhibit proportionate and effective statutory action in safeguarding and youth justice contexts.

Where there are safeguarding concerns, or where youth justice services are involved with an individual, decisions on these cases must be based on the individual circumstances of the case alone. Protected characteristics, such as ethnicity, should not influence the judgement of risk relating to that individual, or the assessment of whether statutory provision should be made.As the Home Secretary said in the House of Commons debate on the Southport Inquiry, the only factors that should be taken into account are the potential risks posed by an individual and how best to manage those risks.The Department for Education is developing a set of practice standards and training for Lead Child Protection Practitioners (LCPPs). The standards will describe the knowledge and skills expected of LCPPs to work effectively in Multi-Agency Child Protection Teams, to take evidence-informed child protection decisions. The standards will reflect the importance of not letting social bias or professional anxiety influence actions or outcomes when working with children and adults from different cultural and racial backgrounds.Youth justice services are supported to identify and assess safeguarding risk through case management guidance.