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.

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 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.

Whether the Motor Insurance Taskforce examined motorcycle insurance as part of its work leading to the Final Report published on 10 December 2025.

The taskforce was given a strategic remit to set the direction for government policy, in order to identify short- and long-term actions that may stabilise or reduce motor insurance premiums, but not the cost of motorcycle insurance specifically. The scope of the taskforce was agreed by ministers at the Department for Transport and HM Treasury, as the co-chairing departments.

Pursuant to the Answer of 2 February 2026 to Question 108459 on Department for Transport: Artificial Intelligence, what assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of AI-enabled initiatives operating on a test-and-learn basis not delivering the expected benefits on the corporate initiatives efficiency target.

Please see the previous response to Question 108459 which answers this question.

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.

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.

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.

With reference to paragraph 4.3.2 of the draft National Policy Statement for Ports, what guidance will be available to decision-makers to support their interpretation of the terms compensation for as a last resort; and what guidance will be provided on the scale and proportionality of any compensation required.

The Government provides guidance on Habitats Regulations Assessments, including compensatory measures, from time to time. We are considering the Transport Committee’s report and responses to the consultation and will shortly lay a final text of the NPSP alongside a response to the Committee.

What the average grant-supported cost per bus was under each bus procurement scheme in each of the last five years; and what assessment she has made of the potential impact of social value weightings on tendered prices.

My Department is not responsible for the procurement of buses and so does not hold this information.

Pursuant to the Answers of 1 December 2025 to Questions 93461 and 93459, if she will publish the locations, route sections and lengths for a) the 52.6 km of rigid concrete barrier installed in each of the periods 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25, b) the 14 km of forecast steel to concrete barrier replacement projects proposed for the Interim Settlement period 2025-26, and c) the projected total length of steel to concrete barrier replacement during RIS3 (2026 to 2030), including any year by year profile held.

The data requested in parts (a) and (b) is currently undergoing verification and will be supplied to the Rt. Hon Member shortly. With respect to part (c), the projected total length of steel to concrete barrier replacement has not yet been finalised for Road Period 3.

Pursuant to the Answer of 22 January 2026 to Question 105288 on Railways: Repairs and Maintenance, what criteria is used to determine which rail infrastructure schemes are included in the Department’s longer-term rail infrastructure pipeline.

This government believes in the importance of rail investment to support economic growth and bring connections to people all across the country. The type and level of investment is determined by the needs of passengers, rail users and the network, while delivering value for money and meeting the government’s priorities.

What steps her Department is tacking to help tackle anti-social behaviour on the bus network.

The Department is working across government and with partners, industry and local transport authorities, to ensure that everyone feels and is safe when travelling by bus. Through the Bus Services Act 2025 we have introduced measures to combat anti-social behaviour (ASB) on the bus network. This includes mandating training for staff working in the bus industry, introducing a power to enable the Secretary of State to publish statutory guidance on the inclusivity of bus stations and stops and giving local transport authorities the power to create byelaws and deploy officers who can deal with ASB and fare evasion on the bus network.In addition, the Department previously provided £2.5 million to pilot five Transport Safety Officer (TSO) teams on the network. The pilots ended in March 2025, and a full evaluation of the programme will be published in due course. We have also recently published TSO practitioner guidance for local authorities wanting to implement a scheme in their area.

When her Department plans to publish the updated Traffic Advisory Leaflet 1/24; and what assessment she has made of the potential merits of recommending that local authorities permit motorcycles to use bus lanes.

The Department for Transport does not currently have plans to update Traffic Advisory Leaflet 1/24.The Department for Transport undertook a consultation on the potential merits of recommending that local authorities permit motorcycles to use bus lanes in 2024. The responses received to the consultation did not provide a robust evidence base on which to amend the current policy that it is for local authorities to determine whether to allow motorcycles to use bus lanes in their areas.

With reference to the provision of central reservation barriers on the National Highways motorway and trunk road network, how many crossover accidents, where vehicles have breached the central reservation, occurred in 2024 and 2025 on sections equipped with a) steel barriers, and b) rigid concrete barriers; and what is the total length and number of assets of life expired steel central reservation barrier on that network that require replacement.

Data on road traffic casualties on the roads in Great Britain is collected via the STATS19 process. The most recently available STATS19 dataset is for 2024 and was published by DfT in September 2025:https://www.data.gov.uk/dataset/cb7ae6f0-4be6-4935-9277-47e5ce24a11f/road-safety-data. STATS19 does not record the barrier type and so it is not possible to ascertain the answers to points (a) and (b). Based on the available asset data, there are approximately 10,400km of vehicle restraint barriers on the Strategic Road Network (SRN) operated by National Highways, which is made up of barriers in the central reservation and verges. This comprises 9,300km of steel barrier, 870km of concrete barrier and 230km of wire barrier. 1% (equivalent to approximately 100km of barrier) is categorised as the worst condition banding (i.e 'severely corroded / unserviceable / at end of life'). National Highways prioritises for intervention those assets in the worst condition and barriers in higher risk locations, such as the central reservation.

When she plans to publish the final National Policy Statement for Ports..

The final text of the revised National Policy Statement for Ports will be laid in Parliament in due course.