Written questions by Lowe.

Whether there are plans to increase or prioritise the deportation of foreign national offenders convicted of sexual offences in the Great Yarmouth area, and whether any targeted immigration enforcement activity is planned locally for this purpose.

We do not hold information related to enforcement operations and/ or compliance visits targeting foreign national offenders at risk of reoffending in Great Yarmouth.The Home Office takes reports of immigration offences very seriously and encourages reporting via the public allegations form available at: https://www.imsallegations.homeoffice.gov.uk/start.Any suggestion of sexual offences should be reported to the police immediately.Immigration Enforcement operations can only be mounted where relevant, current information and / or intelligence suggests that individuals in breach of immigration law may be found at a particular location.We work closely with Policing partners to use immigration powers to disrupt criminal activity including those who commit serious crimes including sexual offences.Where Foreign National Offenders are required to report to police (as part of their strict immigration bail conditions) are identified as being removable from the United Kingdom we will take steps to detain and enforce their removal.To intensify these efforts we have redeployed staff and expanded our detention estate to bolster our capacity for swift, firm and fair returns.The latest published statistics for the removal of Foreign National Offenders and overall enforcement visits can be found below:https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/immigration-statistics-quarterly-releasehttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/returns-from-the-uk-and-illegal-working-activity-since-july-2024/illegal-working-and-enforcement-activity-to-the-end-of-september-2025

How many foreign national offenders convicted of sexual or violent offences against women in the Great Yarmouth area in each of the last five years were subject to deportation action, and how many have been removed from the UK.

We are fully committed to making our communities safer by returning those who break our laws. In the period between this government coming to power and January 2026, over 8,700 foreign national offenders (FNOs) have been returned from the UK. This is a 32% increase on the FNO returns recorded in the previous nineteen-month period ending June 2024, and we will continue to do everything we can to remove these vile criminals from our streets.The information that you have requested regarding FNOs in Great Yarmouth is not available from published statistics.Work is currently underway to publish more detailed information on FNOs subject to deportation. Further information on this work can be found at: Statistics on foreign national offenders and the immigration system - GOV.UK.

What contingency plans her Department has in place should repayment outcomes under the Alternative Student Finance model diverge from those under the standard student loan system; and whether any such contingency measures would require additional public expenditure.

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

What assessment he has made of the adequacy of victim support services for women in Great Yarmouth, including access to crisis accommodation, counselling, and legal advice, and whether any additional funding has been provided.

The Ministry of Justice is investing £550 million in victim support services over the next three years – the biggest investment in victim support services to date. We will be increasing funding for victim support services year on year, from 2026 to 2029, recognising the need to meet the rising cost pressures of delivery.In addition, £6 million will be invested over the next two years to deliver free, independent legal advice for victims and survivors of adult rape across England and Wales, to help them understand their legal rights.The Ministry of Justice provides all Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in England and Wales with core grant funding to commission support services, such as counselling, for victims of all crime types. In addition, they receive ring-fenced funding for domestic and sexual abuse services. PCCs are best placed to understand their local communities, and to commission appropriate support to meet the needs of victims in their area.The Department’s Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Fund (RASASF) provide grants to over 60 specialist organisations. Funded activities provide holistic, trauma-informed support to victims within the Norfolk area.Under Part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, Tier 1 local authorities in England are required to assess local need for, and commission, support for victims of domestic abuse and their children within relevant safe accommodation, for example, refuges. To support delivery of the duty, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has provided £499 million to local authorities over the next three years.

What contracts, memoranda of understanding, or advisory agreements her Department or the Student Loans Company have entered into with Islamic finance advisory organisations in relation to the Alternative Student Finance model; and what the total projected cost of those agreements is over the next five years.

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.

How many deportations of foreign national offenders convicted of offences against women in Great Yarmouth in the last five years were delayed or prevented due to legal barriers, including outstanding appeals, asylum claims, human rights challenges, or lack of documentation.

We are fully committed to making our communities safer by returning those who break our laws. In the period between this government coming to power and January 2026, over 8,700 foreign national offenders (FNOs) have been returned from the UK. This is a 32% increase on the FNO returns recorded in the previous nineteen-month period ending June 2024, and we will continue to do everything we can to remove these vile criminals from our streets.The information that you have requested regarding FNOs in Great Yarmouth is not available from published statistics.Work is currently underway to publish more detailed information on FNOs subject to deportation. Further information on this work can be found at: Statistics on foreign national offenders and the immigration system - GOV.UK.

What proportion of recorded sexual offences and violent offences against women in the Great Yarmouth local authority area in each of the last five years involved suspects who were foreign nationals, broken down by offence type and immigration status at the time of arrest.

The Home Office collects and publishes recorded crime statistics from police forces in England and Wales including on sexual offences and violence against the person offences, broken down by year, and Community Safety Partnership (CSP) area, including for Great Yarmouth. These are routinely published as official statistics and can be accessed here:https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/police-recorded-crime-and-outcomes-open-data-tablesThe police recorded crime series does not include data on the nationality and immigration status of suspects.

Whether his Department will publish details of any contracts, consultancy arrangements, training programmes, or formal partnerships between Women’s Aid and (a) Cafcass and (b) the family courts.

The Ministry of Justice will be investing £550 million in victim support services over the next three years – the biggest investment into victim support services to date. This includes funding for the 42 Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) across England and Wales to commission local practical, emotional and therapeutic support services for victims of all crime types. This includes:‘Core’ funding, which is for PCCs to allocate at their discretion, based on their assessment of local need.Funding that is ringfenced for sexual violence and domestic abuse services.PCCs are best placed to understand their local communities and providers, and to commission appropriate support to meet the need of victims in their area. Many PCCs across England and Wales provide funding to local Women’s Aid centres to deliver vital victim support services within their area.We do not routinely publish the full Ministry of Jusice budget or details of grant agreements or contracts for victim and witness support services. The budgets for individual PCC areas are published on each area’s website. A breakdown of grant funding for the previous financial year is published on an annual basis on the Government Grants Information System.Turning specifically to the Family Courts, since 13 January 2025, a process has operated that allows court staff to ensure the safe service of court documents to those who are residing at a refuge. This service ensures that courts can protect the individual’s safety (and that of everyone living in the refuge) while also supporting the right to a fair trial for all parties. Practice Direction 6D makes provision for this service.The Ministry of Justice awarded a grant to Women's Aid Federation of England and Welsh Women's Aid to develop and deliver this service. Details of this will be published as part of the Government Grants publication which can be found here: Government grants data and statistics - GOV.UK. Routine funding is now provided to both organisations to continue its operation.Cafcass does not hold any contracts, service agreements, training arrangements or other formal partnership arrangements with Women’s Aid.

What estimate her Department has made of the future cost to the public purse of maintaining, reviewing, and 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.

Whether her Department intends to maintain ongoing engagement with Islamic finance advisory bodies to review the continued Sharia compliance of the Alternative Student Finance model; what form that engagement will take; and whether the cost of such engagement will be met from the public purse.

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.

If he will make a comparative assessment of (a) recorded animal welfare non‑compliances and (b) the potential impact on the Food Standards Agency's inspection costs associated with (i) stunned and (ii) non‑stun slaughter.

Operators of Food Standards Agency (FSA) approved slaughterhouses may use any legally permitted method of slaughter to meet their customer needs, provided all relevant legislative and animal welfare requirements are met. There is no legal requirement for operators to seek approval from the FSA for a particular slaughter method. As a result, slaughterhouses may lawfully carry out stunned slaughter, non‑stunned slaughter, or a combination of both. The FSA does not record Official Veterinarian or Official Auxiliary time, associated costs, or enforcement activity by slaughter method. Consequently, the FSA does not hold data that would allow a direct comparison between stunned and non‑stunned slaughter in respect of supervision time, inspection or enforcement costs, or animal welfare non‑compliances. Data regarding the volume of meat resulting from animals slaughtered without stunning is not collected.

What the expenditure has been on external consultants, advisory bodies and specialist Islamic finance expertise for the Alternative Student Finance model.

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

Whether she will issue guidance to local authorities and other public bodies on the retention of historic records that may be relevant to investigations into group-based child sexual exploitation.

Baroness Casey made clear in her audit into Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse that local authorities, police forces and other relevant agencies should be required not to destroy any relevant records. Once the government responded to Baroness Casey’s report and accepted all her recommendations in June 2025, including establishing an Inquiry, organisations already had additional legal obligations to protect relevant information.Alongside her appointment on 9 December 2025, the Chair of the Inquiry wrote to the Cabinet Secretary to highlight the publication of the draft Terms of Reference at the earliest possible opportunity, to ensure that organisations were retaining information in line with the specific scope that the draft Terms of Reference established, including the time period, organisations, and issues likely to be examined. This letter highlighted the need for relevant local and national bodies to be ready to meet their legal obligations to provide relevant records, information and data to the Inquiry as it is requested.This letter was shared with Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), Department for Education (DfE) and Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to cascade the requirement to retain records to their relevant sectors, including local councils, health agencies and police forces.Following this, on 14 January 2026 the Home Office Permanent Secretary wrote to the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and other arm’s length bodies to pass on the Chair’s letter to the Cabinet Secretary, to set out the need for full transparency and cooperation with the Inquiry.The Inquiry has full statutory powers to compel evidence and witnesses and the Inquiry Chair has been clear that any gaps in evidence will be identified and investigated. If the Inquiry identifies potential criminal wrongdoing, including the destruction of evidence that should have been retained, this will be passed to law enforcement to assess.We expect organisations to comply with the law on record retention and do not intend to issue further guidance. The Inquiry may choose to write to affected organisations on record retention in due course now it has been formally established.

If he will make a comparative assessment of the (a) inspection and enforcement time required for non‑stun slaughter and (b) volume of non‑stun meat produced in the UK.

Operators of Food Standards Agency (FSA) approved slaughterhouses may use any legally permitted method of slaughter to meet their customer needs, provided all relevant legislative and animal welfare requirements are met. There is no legal requirement for operators to seek approval from the FSA for a particular slaughter method. As a result, slaughterhouses may lawfully carry out stunned slaughter, non‑stunned slaughter, or a combination of both. The FSA does not record Official Veterinarian or Official Auxiliary time, associated costs, or enforcement activity by slaughter method. Consequently, the FSA does not hold data that would allow a direct comparison between stunned and non‑stunned slaughter in respect of supervision time, inspection or enforcement costs, or animal welfare non‑compliances. Data regarding the volume of meat resulting from animals slaughtered without stunning is not collected.

What the cost to the public purse has been on the development of the Alternative Student Finance model, including all programme costs, consultancy fees, legal drafting and stakeholder engagement.

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

How many hours of Official Veterinarian and Meat Hygiene Inspector time were spent supervising non‑stun slaughter in each of the last five years; and what the cost of that time was.

Operators of Food Standards Agency (FSA) approved slaughterhouses may use any legally permitted method of slaughter to meet their customer needs, provided all relevant legislative and animal welfare requirements are met. There is no legal requirement for operators to seek approval from the FSA for a particular slaughter method. As a result, slaughterhouses may lawfully carry out stunned slaughter, non‑stunned slaughter, or a combination of both. The FSA does not record Official Veterinarian or Official Auxiliary time, associated costs, or enforcement activity by slaughter method. Consequently, the FSA does not hold data that would allow a direct comparison between stunned and non‑stunned slaughter in respect of supervision time, inspection or enforcement costs, or animal welfare non‑compliances. Data regarding the volume of meat resulting from animals slaughtered without stunning is not collected.

What assessment she has made of the risk that relevant records may have been destroyed before formal retention notices were issued; and what steps she has taken to ensure no loss of material occurs.

Baroness Casey made clear in her audit into Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse that local authorities, police forces and other relevant agencies should be required not to destroy any relevant records. Once the government responded to Baroness Casey’s report and accepted all her recommendations in June 2025, including establishing an Inquiry, organisations already had additional legal obligations to protect relevant information.Alongside her appointment on 9 December 2025, the Chair of the Inquiry wrote to the Cabinet Secretary to highlight the publication of the draft Terms of Reference at the earliest possible opportunity, to ensure that organisations were retaining information in line with the specific scope that the draft Terms of Reference established, including the time period, organisations, and issues likely to be examined. This letter highlighted the need for relevant local and national bodies to be ready to meet their legal obligations to provide relevant records, information and data to the Inquiry as it is requested.This letter was shared with Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), Department for Education (DfE) and Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to cascade the requirement to retain records to their relevant sectors, including local councils, health agencies and police forces.Following this, on 14 January 2026 the Home Office Permanent Secretary wrote to the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and other arm’s length bodies to pass on the Chair’s letter to the Cabinet Secretary, to set out the need for full transparency and cooperation with the Inquiry.The Inquiry has full statutory powers to compel evidence and witnesses and the Inquiry Chair has been clear that any gaps in evidence will be identified and investigated. If the Inquiry identifies potential criminal wrongdoing, including the destruction of evidence that should have been retained, this will be passed to law enforcement to assess.We expect organisations to comply with the law on record retention and do not intend to issue further guidance. The Inquiry may choose to write to affected organisations on record retention in due course now it has been formally established.

What systems her department has put in place to ensure that local authorities, police forces and other agencies cannot delete or destroy records that may be relevant to the independent inquiry into grooming gangs.

Baroness Casey made clear in her audit into Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse that local authorities, police forces and other relevant agencies should be required not to destroy any relevant records. Once the government responded to Baroness Casey’s report and accepted all her recommendations in June 2025, including establishing an Inquiry, organisations already had additional legal obligations to protect relevant information.Alongside her appointment on 9 December 2025, the Chair of the Inquiry wrote to the Cabinet Secretary to highlight the publication of the draft Terms of Reference at the earliest possible opportunity, to ensure that organisations were retaining information in line with the specific scope that the draft Terms of Reference established, including the time period, organisations, and issues likely to be examined. This letter highlighted the need for relevant local and national bodies to be ready to meet their legal obligations to provide relevant records, information and data to the Inquiry as it is requested.This letter was shared with Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), Department for Education (DfE) and Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to cascade the requirement to retain records to their relevant sectors, including local councils, health agencies and police forces.Following this, on 14 January 2026 the Home Office Permanent Secretary wrote to the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and other arm’s length bodies to pass on the Chair’s letter to the Cabinet Secretary, to set out the need for full transparency and cooperation with the Inquiry.The Inquiry has full statutory powers to compel evidence and witnesses and the Inquiry Chair has been clear that any gaps in evidence will be identified and investigated. If the Inquiry identifies potential criminal wrongdoing, including the destruction of evidence that should have been retained, this will be passed to law enforcement to assess.We expect organisations to comply with the law on record retention and do not intend to issue further guidance. The Inquiry may choose to write to affected organisations on record retention in due course now it has been formally established.

What assessment she has made of whether all relevant public bodies have taken the necessary steps to preserve records that may be required by the independent inquiry into grooming gangs.

Baroness Casey made clear in her audit into Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse that local authorities, police forces and other relevant agencies should be required not to destroy any relevant records. Once the government responded to Baroness Casey’s report and accepted all her recommendations in June 2025, including establishing an Inquiry, organisations already had additional legal obligations to protect relevant information.Alongside her appointment on 9 December 2025, the Chair of the Inquiry wrote to the Cabinet Secretary to highlight the publication of the draft Terms of Reference at the earliest possible opportunity, to ensure that organisations were retaining information in line with the specific scope that the draft Terms of Reference established, including the time period, organisations, and issues likely to be examined. This letter highlighted the need for relevant local and national bodies to be ready to meet their legal obligations to provide relevant records, information and data to the Inquiry as it is requested.This letter was shared with Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), Department for Education (DfE) and Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to cascade the requirement to retain records to their relevant sectors, including local councils, health agencies and police forces.Following this, on 14 January 2026 the Home Office Permanent Secretary wrote to the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and other arm’s length bodies to pass on the Chair’s letter to the Cabinet Secretary, to set out the need for full transparency and cooperation with the Inquiry.The Inquiry has full statutory powers to compel evidence and witnesses and the Inquiry Chair has been clear that any gaps in evidence will be identified and investigated. If the Inquiry identifies potential criminal wrongdoing, including the destruction of evidence that should have been retained, this will be passed to law enforcement to assess.We expect organisations to comply with the law on record retention and do not intend to issue further guidance. The Inquiry may choose to write to affected organisations on record retention in due course now it has been formally established.

What the projected and actual costs are for the Student Loans Company to design, build, test, and implement systems required to administer the Alternative Student Finance model.

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