Every parliamentary written question tabled by Rupert Lowe this session, with the full answer and department. Back to the MP page.
Showing 161–180 of 2,378 · this parliament
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.
If he will make a comparative estimate of the costs to the Food Standards Agency of supervising (a) non‑stun slaughter and (b) stunned slaughter; and what proportion of those costs are recovered from industry.
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.
Food and Rural Affairs, whether she has made an assessment of the potential impact of the exemption from stunning for religious slaughter on the Food Standards Agency's inspection and enforcement costs.
The Food Standards Agency apply animal welfare controls within approved slaughterhouses in England and Wales under a Service Level Agreement with the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs and the Welsh Government. We assess the impact of inspection and enforcement requirements on costs as part of the annual process of reviewing the Service Level Agreement. The Agreement applies to all of FSA’s monitoring and enforcement of the relevant animal welfare requirements, and does not consider slaughter without stunning separately.
Whether a cost–benefit analysis was undertaken before proceeding with the development of the Alternative Student Finance model.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
Which Ministers have authorised expenditure on the development of the Alternative Student Finance model since 2013; and on what dates those approvals were given.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
What visa categories were held by the parents of Axel Rudakubana during their residence in the United Kingdom; and what character-assessment checks were applied when issuing their visas.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
What recent assessment she has made of the (a) relevance and (b) accuracy of stakeholder feedback from faith groups gathered during the previous Administration’s Independent Review of Prevent.
The Independent Review of Prevent was undertaken independently of the Home Office. When conducting the review, Sir William Shawcross independently and autonomously gathered feedback from a range of stakeholders, including civil society organisations and Prevent partners. This includes both faith-based and non-religious organisations. Any groups who were consulted were made aware of the Privacy Notice associated with the review. This makes clear that any evidence was collected on a confidential and, where requested, anonymous basis. All feedback was recorded with the aim of understanding how well Prevent operates, to help the government develop the strategy and policies to help safeguard people from being drawn into terrorism. Decisions on how the evidence was assessed and weighted were a matter for the Independent Reviewer. The recommendations made by the Independent Review of Prevent can be found in section eight of the Review, and the Government’s acknowledgement is detailed in the 2023 response. The Government’s current Prevent guidance is informed by these recommendations, rather than by direct use of any individual stakeholder feedback.
Which (a) faith groups, (b) religious organisations and (c) non-religious belief organisations were consulted in the previous Administration’s Independent Review of Prevent.
The Independent Review of Prevent was undertaken independently of the Home Office. When conducting the review, Sir William Shawcross independently and autonomously gathered feedback from a range of stakeholders, including civil society organisations and Prevent partners. This includes both faith-based and non-religious organisations. Any groups who were consulted were made aware of the Privacy Notice associated with the review. This makes clear that any evidence was collected on a confidential and, where requested, anonymous basis. All feedback was recorded with the aim of understanding how well Prevent operates, to help the government develop the strategy and policies to help safeguard people from being drawn into terrorism. Decisions on how the evidence was assessed and weighted were a matter for the Independent Reviewer. The recommendations made by the Independent Review of Prevent can be found in section eight of the Review, and the Government’s acknowledgement is detailed in the 2023 response. The Government’s current Prevent guidance is informed by these recommendations, rather than by direct use of any individual stakeholder feedback.
What recent assessment she has made of whether the stakeholder engagement undertaken during the previous Administration’s Independent Review of Prevent attached equal weight to views expressed by (a) faith groups and (b) non-religious belief organisations.
The Independent Review of Prevent was undertaken independently of the Home Office. When conducting the review, Sir William Shawcross independently and autonomously gathered feedback from a range of stakeholders, including civil society organisations and Prevent partners. This includes both faith-based and non-religious organisations. Any groups who were consulted were made aware of the Privacy Notice associated with the review. This makes clear that any evidence was collected on a confidential and, where requested, anonymous basis. All feedback was recorded with the aim of understanding how well Prevent operates, to help the government develop the strategy and policies to help safeguard people from being drawn into terrorism. Decisions on how the evidence was assessed and weighted were a matter for the Independent Reviewer. The recommendations made by the Independent Review of Prevent can be found in section eight of the Review, and the Government’s acknowledgement is detailed in the 2023 response. The Government’s current Prevent guidance is informed by these recommendations, rather than by direct use of any individual stakeholder feedback.
Whether her Department uses stakeholder feedback from faith groups gathered during the previous Administration’s Independent Review of Prevent in developing current Prevent policy and guidance.
The Independent Review of Prevent was undertaken independently of the Home Office. When conducting the review, Sir William Shawcross independently and autonomously gathered feedback from a range of stakeholders, including civil society organisations and Prevent partners. This includes both faith-based and non-religious organisations. Any groups who were consulted were made aware of the Privacy Notice associated with the review. This makes clear that any evidence was collected on a confidential and, where requested, anonymous basis. All feedback was recorded with the aim of understanding how well Prevent operates, to help the government develop the strategy and policies to help safeguard people from being drawn into terrorism. Decisions on how the evidence was assessed and weighted were a matter for the Independent Reviewer. The recommendations made by the Independent Review of Prevent can be found in section eight of the Review, and the Government’s acknowledgement is detailed in the 2023 response. The Government’s current Prevent guidance is informed by these recommendations, rather than by direct use of any individual stakeholder feedback.
If she will publish a summary of the feedback provided by faith groups during the previous administration’s Independent Review of Prevent.
The Independent Review of Prevent was undertaken independently of the Home Office. When conducting the review, Sir William Shawcross independently and autonomously gathered feedback from a range of stakeholders, including civil society organisations and Prevent partners. This includes both faith-based and non-religious organisations. Any groups who were consulted were made aware of the Privacy Notice associated with the review. This makes clear that any evidence was collected on a confidential and, where requested, anonymous basis. All feedback was recorded with the aim of understanding how well Prevent operates, to help the government develop the strategy and policies to help safeguard people from being drawn into terrorism. Decisions on how the evidence was assessed and weighted were a matter for the Independent Reviewer. The recommendations made by the Independent Review of Prevent can be found in section eight of the Review, and the Government’s acknowledgement is detailed in the 2023 response. The Government’s current Prevent guidance is informed by these recommendations, rather than by direct use of any individual stakeholder feedback.
Communities and Local Government, for each of the past five years, what proportion of households who left their last settled home due to domestic abuse were (a) UK nationals and (b) non‑UK nationals.
The government publishes quarterly data on the number of applicants owed a prevention or relief duty where the reason for loss of last settled home was domestic abuse. This is available in tables A2P and A2R here. We do not publish separate data on the immigration status of applicants whose reason for loss of last settled home was domestic abuse.
Communities and Local Government, for each of the past five years, what proportion of households who left their last settled home due to domestic abuse held an immigration status conferring eligibility for social housing, including (a) refugee status, (b) humanitarian protection, (c) settled status, (d) pre‑settled status with a qualifying right to reside and (e) indefinite leave to remain.
The government publishes quarterly data on the number of applicants owed a prevention or relief duty where the reason for loss of last settled home was domestic abuse. This is available in tables A2P and A2R here. We do not publish separate data on the immigration status of applicants whose reason for loss of last settled home was domestic abuse.
What has been the total cost to the public purse of the Gaza medical evacuation scheme for children.
I refer the Hon. Member to the answer I gave on 17 November 2025 to Question 81587.
Communities and Local Government, for each of the past five years, what proportion of social housing evictions involved households with (a) no recourse to public funds, (b) pre‑settled status without a qualifying right to reside, (c) temporary visas, (d) refugee status, (e) humanitarian protection, or (f) indefinite leave to remain.
My Department does not hold the information requested.