Written questions by Holden.

Pursuant to the Answer of 1 December 2025 to Question 93460 on Roads: Safety Barriers if she will publish the (a) location and route section, (b) date granted, c) reason of each departure from standard; what plans she has for upgrades to rigid concrete barrier.

The locations, routes and dates of approval for the departures from standard allowing steel crash barrier to be replaced with new steel barrier, rather than concrete, are as follows:M4 Junctions 13-14: 20/08/2025M6 Junction 37-38: 12/05/25M5 Junctions 23-24: 24/04/24A1(M) Junctions 37-38: 02/12/24 The reason for permitting departures from standard allowing the replacement of life-expired steel barrier with new steel barrier and not concrete barrier is due to the affordability of concrete barrier schemes – this can be either due to the cost of the concrete barrier in isolation or the additional works which would be required in order to change the barrier provision from steel barrier to concrete barrier. Plans for upgrades to rigid concrete barrier: Given the availability of new higher-containment modular precast concrete barriers, and higher-containment steel barriers, a tiered approach has now been adopted for the renewal of existing central reserve barriers.  The highest tier is the provision of rigid, higher-containment concrete barrier.  This can be relaxed to the provision of a non-rigid, higher-containment concrete barrier or a higher-containment steel barrier. However, this is only permitted if supported by a documented justification and risk assessment.

What assessment she has made of the potential impact of (a) the abolition of non-dom status and (b) increases in levels of taxation on the retention of international shipowners in the UK; what estimate she has made of the number of shipowning individuals or companies that (i) have relocated and (ii) are considering relocating as a result of these changes; and what steps the Government is taking to ensure that the UK remains an attractive base for global shipping and maritime businesses.

The Government’s priority is improving the UK’s competitiveness internationally and securing economic growth. The reforms to the tax treatment of non-domiciled individuals have been specifically designed to make the UK competitive, with a modern, simple tax regime that is also fair. The reforms establish a tax regime for new residents which is more attractive to new arrivals than the current rules.The introduction of a residence-based tax system is expected to raise £39.5bn by 2030-31 (as costed by the OBR last autumn), and the OBR have said that there is no firm evidence to change the estimated impact of the reforms on migration. As set out at Budget 2025, the Chancellor has been clear that she will continue to assess the regime to ensure it strikes the right balance, including on competitiveness.The Government published a Tax Information and Impact Note for this policy on 30 October 2024, which can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tax-changes-for-non-uk-domiciled-individuals/reforming-the-taxation-of-non-uk-domiciled-individualsRegarding global shipping and maritime businesses, the Government is maintaining the Tonnage Tax regime, introduced in 2000 to improve the competitiveness of the UK’s shipping industry. This is designed to make it easier for shipping companies to move to the UK and ensures they are not disadvantaged compared with firms operating in other countries.

How paragraph 3.9.2 of the draft National Policy Statement for Ports will be applied by decision-makers when considering development consent for port infrastructure.

We are currently considering the views received from consultation on, and Parliamentary scrutiny of, the draft revised National Policy Statement for Ports, and will lay a final text in Parliament in due course. In line with the recommendation of the Transport Select Committee, we are considering further guidance on how developers assess carbon emissions as part of Environmental Impact Assessments.

Pursuant to the Answer of 4 December 2025 to Question 95968, for what reason there is a difference between the estimates of the fiscal cost of freezing rail fares (a) as set out in that Answer and (b) the figures published in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook, November 2025.

The difference is due to a difference in rounding. The estimates provided in the Department’s previous response were sourced from the published Budget document, where numbers are rounded to the nearest £5m. The OBR choose to round figures to the nearest £1m in their own publications, including their Economic and Fiscal Outlook published in November 2025.

What is the policy of (a) the Cabinet Office people group and (b) the Office for Equality and Opportunity, on white privilege.

The Government wants to ensure that whoever you are, wherever you come from, Britain is a country that will respect your contribution and give you a fair chance to get on in life. The Government is committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity and improving outcomes for everyone.

What percentage weighting is given to social value in the evaluation of bids under each Government-funded scheme supporting the procurement of new buses, including zero-emission, electric, hydrogen and hybrid buses.

Social value, through community benefits, was one of the criteria considered when assessing the Zero Emission Bus Regional Area (ZEBRA) 2 funding announced in March 2024. The strategic case, including community benefits, had a 10% weighting. The published criteria can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/apply-for-zero-emission-bus-funding-zebra-2/apply-for-zero-emission-bus-funding-zebra-2 . Previous rounds of ZEBRA funding did not explicitly assess social value. Through the UK Bus Manufacturing Expert Panel, which this Government launched in March 2025, my department is working with the sector to explore how best to consider social value in future bus procurement.

How many Memorandums of Understanding the UK has signed since 5 July 2025, broken down by (a) the countries with which countries they were signed and (b) the policy areas covered by each agreement.

This Department has signed a range of Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) since 5 July 2025 to help drive economic growth. However, these are not routinely published or notified to Parliament in line with HMG policy on non-legally binding instruments and in some cases to respect the confidentiality requirements of partner countries. It is, therefore, not possible to provide a full list of MoUs by country and subject area as requested.

Communities and Local Government, pursuant to the Answer of 3 February 2026 to Question 108300, when the rollout of the Fire and Rescue Data Analysis Platform (FaRDAP) will be completed; and from what date Fire and Rescue Services will be required to record whether fires involve lithium-ion batteries and electric vehicles.

The Fire and Rescue Data Platform (FaRDaP) Version 1 was successfully rolled out to 48 Fire and Rescue Services in England, Scotland and Wales by 14 November 2025. At present, Fire and Rescue Services are not required to record whether fires involve lithium-ion batteries or electric vehicles in national incident data, and no date has been set for when such recording will become mandatory. However, work is underway on FaRDaP Version 2 to update the data collected, including the development of categories to capture incidents involving lithium-ion batteries and electric vehicles (including e-bikes and e-scooters).

Pursuant to the Answer of 5 February 2026 to Question 110095, whether the Department plans to publish route-specific or island impact assessments before domestic maritime is brought into scope of the UK ETS in 2026.

The Impact Assessment set out that it is not possible to robustly break down compliance costs to the level of individual routes or service types, as ticket prices, fare structures and commercial operating decisions vary widely. The Assessment therefore considers impacts at the sector and scheme level. The Authority consulted extensively with all operators, including those serving island mainland and shortsea routes, to ensure all perspectives informed policy development.

With reference to her Department's research and analysis document entitled Factors influencing multi-modal public transport use, published on 29 January 2026, what was the total cost of commissioning and producing the research; how much of that cost was spent on external contractors and consultants; which organisations and suppliers were contracted to deliver the research; and from which budget and programme was the work funded.

The research report on ‘Factors influencing multi-modal public transport use’ was published on 29 January 2026. The work was conducted in full by the external research contractor, Verian (previously Kantar) and was commissioned as part of the ‘TROO0282 - Qualitative Research Call Off’ contract, details of which can be found on the GOV.UK Contract Finder. The project was funded under the Department’s Science, Research and Support budget, as presented in the 2024/25 financial estimates.

Whether her Department is considering mandating the TechSafe framework as a national safety, competence and assurance framework to support implementation of the Automated Vehicles Act and related vehicle technology regulation.

The Department is currently running a public Call for Evidence in support of the regulatory framework for automated vehicles. Responses to this Call for Evidence will inform a public consultation on the proposed regulations later in the year. The Department encourages those with views or evidence on frameworks such as TechSafe to respond to the Call for Evidence.

Pursuant to the Answer of 19 January 2026 to Question 105894, what estimate the Department has made of the proportion of efficiency savings attributed to regulated settlements that arise from funding constraints imposed by the Office of Rail and Road rather than from operational productivity improvements.

As set out in Question 105894, the Office for Rail and Road do not set funding constraints as these are determined via the overall funding settlement.

For each month since November 2025, how many driving test centres recorded the maximum waiting time of 24 weeks for a practical car test; and if she will publish a list of those test centres for each month since.

The answer of 9 January 2026 to Question 101472 provided information on which driving test centres had a waiting time of 24 weeks in each month from July 2024, including for November 2025.The answer of 22 January 2026 to Question 104863 provided information on which driving test centres had a waiting time of 24 weeks in December 2025.The attached Excel document shows how many driving test centres had a waiting time of 24 weeks for a practical car driving test, in January 2026.

Pursuant to the Answer of 29 January 2026 to Question 107278, what items of hospitality were provided at that reception; and if she will publish the relevant food and drink invoices and procurement contracts.

The items of hospitality provided at the Department for Transport Operator Group’s (DFTO) parliamentary reception on 19 January 2026 were: canapés, tea and coffee, bottled water, and various soft drinks totalling £1,646.99. As this was below the contractual minimum catering spend of £2,365, an additional charge of £718.01 was applied. Room hire, a service charge, a facility fee, and an AV package made up the remainder of the cost published in the Answer to Question 107278. Relevant documents including invoices and the procurement contract will be published in due course, as set out in Cabinet Office guidance for electronic invoicing and payments under the Procurement Act 2023.

Pursuant to the Answer of 19 January 2026 to Question 105895 on National Highways and Network Rail: Finance, what estimate he has made of the net efficiency savings attributable to Network Rail after accounting for the up-front and ongoing costs of the technology and systems investments cited.

The technology and systems investments cited contribute to Network Rail’s £3.9 billion Control Period 7 efficiency target but their costs are not directly comparable, given that the investments confer benefits beyond financial efficiency as well as contributing to Network Rail’s overall delivery of its settlement.

Pursuant to the Answer of 22 January 2026 to Question 105752, what estimate her Department has made of the number of job losses expected as a result of workforce reform associated with the corporate initiatives underpinning the projected efficiency savings by 2028–29.

The Department has set out its forecasted efficiencies in the Departmental Efficiency Plan as well as making a further commitment to reduce our administration budget in line with the government’s overall aim to reduce administration costs by 15% by the end of the decade. This will likely mean that the core department will have to become smaller, more skilled, agile, and productive. This work is in the early stages, however we expect that natural attrition will play a significant part and there are no planned compulsory redundancies. Furthermore, the Department has not made plans for any compulsory redundancies in the train operating companies (TOCs). The Spending Review settlement included an allowance for a small number of potential voluntary exits in the TOC workforce, and these are still being considered.

Innovation and Technology, pursuant to the Answer of 4 February 2026 to Question 108801, what the estimated cost to the Intellectual Property Office of policies, programmes or staffing related to net zero, sustainability or green innovation objectives in each of the next five financial years.

We currently have a small amount of staff resource allocated to delivering our sustainability, net zero and green innovation objectives. Based on the planned continuation of this work at current levels, the estimated average annual cost over the next five years is approximately £58k.In parallel, we are reviewing our future accommodation requirements with options under consideration including the retention of our existing IPO‑owned building or relocation to premises that meet net zero compliance standards. Full details are not yet available, and we do not anticipate any changes or associated costs on sustainability programmes for at least the next two years.

With reference to the Cabinet Office letter to Business Unit Heads and Senior Finance Business Partner of 24 April 2025, how many approvals have since been given for branded items, according to information held on the Atamis system.

Approval has been given to seven requests for branded items since the letter was issued to Business Heads and Senior Finance Business Partners on 24 April 2025.

Whether her Department has conducted a comparative assessment of Air Passenger Duty rates in the UK with aviation passenger taxes and equivalent charges in other European countries; and whether such analysis is used to inform decisions on Air Passenger Duty policy.

Air Passenger Duty (APD) applies to airlines, not individual passengers, and is the principal tax on the aviation sector. It is expected to raise £4.7 billion in 2025-26. The Government is clear that APD is an appropriate tax that ensures airlines make a fair contribution to the public finances, particularly given that tickets are VAT free and aviation fuel incurs no duty. Other countries also have different forms of aviation taxes.

What the cost to UK Export Finance was in 2024–25 of expanding its climate stress testing models and scenarios using Network for Greening the Financial System scenarios; what the estimated cost of this work was to the public purse; and whether an estimate has been made of the resulting compliance or financing costs on UK exporters and suppliers.

The work to update UKEF’s climate stress testing models in 2024-25 is in line with industry good practice on financial risk management and uses tools at no extra cost. This work is part of our ongoing responsibilities to meet government risk management requirements and was carried out by UKEF staff within existing resources. As this is an internal risk management exercise, it does not create compliance obligations or financing costs for UK exporters or suppliers.