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, 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, what factors are routinely considered in cost‑benefit analyses undertaken in support of managed realignment options under Shoreline Management Plan 6, including whether impacts on residents’ ongoing welfare and well‑being are assessed.

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, 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 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.

If she will (a) make an assessment of the adequacy of the statutory framework for agencies to investigate and respond where parents and carers actively hinder, obstruct and decline to engage with safeguarding and youth justice processes in cases involving credible ongoing risk and (b) bring forward legislative proposals to strengthen oversight and investigatory powers in such circumstances.

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.

What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the Government's processes for responding to sustained parental or carer non‑cooperation with safeguarding or law‑enforcement authorities in cases involving escalating knife‑related violence risk within the home, including matters raised in The Southport Inquiry Report.

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.

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.

If she will review the immigration status, including eligibility for indefinite leave to remain, of non‑UK nationals granted leave on asylum, refugee, humanitarian protection, discretionary leave, resettlement and other non‑standard and exceptional protection routes, who do not engage with statutory support, safeguarding and risk‑management interventions offered by public authorities.

The Government has set out significant reforms to the asylum system, which are designed to restore control, fairness and public confidence, while ensuring those in genuine need of protection receive that protection.The new core protection model carries clear expectations around integration, lawful behaviour and compliance. Protection status granted through the asylum system, including refugee status and humanitarian protection, will be limited to 30 months, subject to review and will be conditional as opposed to leading automatically to settlement. Decisions on any future grant of indefinite leave to remain under a protection route will take account of an individual’s conduct, compliance with the conditions of their leave, and engagement with the UK’s laws and institutions, in line with the Immigration Rules.The Home Office already has powers to review and, where appropriate, curtail leave where individuals breach conditions or fail to comply with requirements placed upon them. Protection status will be revoked where evidence emerges that it was obtained by deception; where protection is no longer needed such that they cease to qualify for refugee status or humanitarian protection; or where an individual commits a serious crime or represents a threat to our national security. These powers will continue to be used on a case‑by‑case basis, taking account of safeguarding responsibilities and the United Kingdom’s international obligations.The Government keeps the operation of the immigration system under continual review and will ensure that the new framework supports integration, protects the public, and maintains the integrity of the asylum system.

Which men’s or fathers’ organisations Cafcass has consulted in the development of its domestic‑abuse guidance, safeguarding practice, and private‑law policy frameworks; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the balance of stakeholder representation in that engagement.

Over the last two years as Cafcass has been developing its domestic abuse policy and updating its guidance, it has worked with key partners, including fathers’ groups.In addition to this, Cafcass works with external organisations to support the development of its domestic abuse policy and the child impact and assessment framework. This includes engagement through the Domestic Abuse Practice Reference Group. This group, established in November 2023, includes specialist domestic abuse expertise and individuals with lived experience. The group is co‑chaired by the Family Justice Young People’s Board and the domestic abuse charity SafeLives. SafeLives is a charity focused on survivors of domestic abuse regardless of the gender of either the victim or the perpetrator.Cafcass works in partnership with SafeLives, including through seconded specialist advisers, to inform ongoing practice improvement. The Government has not undertaken an assessment of the adequacy of the balance of Cafcass’ stakeholder representation.Senior leaders engage regularly with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and her team.  As part of its commitment to learning from practice, Cafcass managers and leaders will meet with adults and children in proceedings if it is considered appropriate. This could include as part of complaints resolution, audit feedback and/or in response to an incident where the quality of practice is considered to have been less than good.Neither Cafcass nor the Ministry of Justice has entered into any contracts, awarded grants, or commissioned research projects in connection with the revision of domestic abuse practice frameworks since 2016.

Whether her Department or the Student Loans Company have entered into (a) contracts, (b) memoranda of understanding and (c) advisory agreements with Islamic finance advisory organisations regarding 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.

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 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.

Which external organisations Cafcass engages with in the development of its domestic‑abuse guidance and practice frameworks; and whether this includes any women’s advocacy groups or specialist women’s services.

Over the last two years as Cafcass has been developing its domestic abuse policy and updating its guidance, it has worked with key partners, including fathers’ groups.In addition to this, Cafcass works with external organisations to support the development of its domestic abuse policy and the child impact and assessment framework. This includes engagement through the Domestic Abuse Practice Reference Group. This group, established in November 2023, includes specialist domestic abuse expertise and individuals with lived experience. The group is co‑chaired by the Family Justice Young People’s Board and the domestic abuse charity SafeLives. SafeLives is a charity focused on survivors of domestic abuse regardless of the gender of either the victim or the perpetrator.Cafcass works in partnership with SafeLives, including through seconded specialist advisers, to inform ongoing practice improvement. The Government has not undertaken an assessment of the adequacy of the balance of Cafcass’ stakeholder representation.Senior leaders engage regularly with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and her team.  As part of its commitment to learning from practice, Cafcass managers and leaders will meet with adults and children in proceedings if it is considered appropriate. This could include as part of complaints resolution, audit feedback and/or in response to an incident where the quality of practice is considered to have been less than good.Neither Cafcass nor the Ministry of Justice has entered into any contracts, awarded grants, or commissioned research projects in connection with the revision of domestic abuse practice frameworks since 2016.