Found: the document: This is a letter from the House of Lords, Select Committee on the Constitution to Lord Hendy

Found: Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Minister of State for Rail Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Road London

Question to the Department for Transport:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill on 16 October (HL10746), how and why they reached the conclusion that the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 "does not support a positive and productive relationship between employers, employees, and their trade unions", and what discussions they have had with trade unions about that Act.

Answered by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill - Minister of State (Department for Transport)

The implementation of Minimum Service Levels (MSLs) legislation by the last Government only worsened industrial relations. This was particularly evident in rail, where it exacerbated the national disputes, which had seen two years of widespread strikes and disruption to millions of passengers.

MSLs legislation is being repealed under the Employment Rights Bill (ERB). The Government has consulted numerous stakeholders about the ERB, including trade unions.

Question to the Department for Transport:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill on 16 October (HL10758), when assessing the benefits of new road schemes how long those benefits are expected to last, and how loss of benefits are accounted for if congestion reoccurs.

Answered by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill - Minister of State (Department for Transport)

The approach recommended to assess benefits from road investment schemes is set out in DfT’s Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG), which is based on HMT’s Green Book Guidance. This sets out the best practice guidance on assessing and evaluating policies, programmes and projects. The guidance is regularly reviewed and updated to reflect new evidence.

How long benefits may last will be very much dependent on the nature of the scheme, the local area and the strategic objectives being sought. TAG recommends, therefore, that infrastructure schemes should do bespoke analysis using transport modelling. These models, such as the types described in TAG, allow benefits to be calculated based on various behavioural responses expected. For instance, where infrastructure improvements decrease the cost, time and inconvenience of using that infrastructure, transport users may decide to use that infrastructure, change their destinations or activities, or change their mode of travel.

TAG recommends an appraisal period that is linked to the life of the infrastructure asset. This allows accounting for the foreseeable costs and benefits over that time horizon, where they are expected to occur. The appraisal period is usually for 60 years after scheme opening, which is used reasonably consistently in the sector. Allowances may be made for infrastructure that is expected to have longer-lasting benefits and costs after 60 years. TAG recommends that, in such cases, the analysis may cover up to a 100-year appraisal period from scheme opening as a sensitivity test. This is the recommended treatment, since large uncertainty is a feature of the very-long-term, and costs and benefits are heavily discounted in this period.

The benefits of road travel, in particular transport user benefits, can indeed deteriorate for each road user as congestion reoccurs. TAG methods allow for this, utilising the modelling previously mentioned. The “counterfactual” position is important here. This is the state of transport conditions in the case where there is no investment. Benefits are counted across the entire transport network, including non-road travel. Even where the road in question may reach the levels of congestion seen today, benefits, albeit potentially weaker, are still expected to occur even over long-time horizons, when considering the operation of the whole network. For example, traffic may reroute from previous local bottlenecks, some decongestion on public transport services may occur, and so on. In the counterfactual, people would effectively see higher costs/time/inconvenience of reaching the destinations they desire, or indeed become ‘priced off’, the transport system providing them with lower access to opportunity. Again, local conditions are important in understanding the precise source of such benefits.

Question to the Department for Transport:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill on 16 October (HL10758), how they assess the benefits of a new non-road transport project with a potential life of up to a century, what network benefits are accounted for in that assessment, and how new jobs and housing developments are included in such infrastructure planning.

Answered by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill - Minister of State (Department for Transport)

DfT assesses the benefits and costs of transport interventions using our published Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG), which is based on HMT’s Green Book Guidance. This covers a wide range of social, environmental and economic impacts of transport investment. We use transport models to understand how non-road interventions will interact with the existing network, and the pattern of passenger demand. This will reflect users changing their route or mode of travel to make use of the new project.

Our forecasts of travel demand, on which these appraisals are based, take account of the expected locations of housing and jobs in the future. For major schemes, we also model how land uses may change in response to the investment – for example, housing developments near new or improved railway stations. There is a significant body of evidence linking transport connectivity and jobs, which our appraisals take account of. Currently, this tends to be small component of appraised project benefits. We are undertaking research to improve how we predict and value transport’s impact on unemployment, which is likely to increase magnitude of these appraised benefits in deprived areas.

TAG recommends an appraisal period that is linked to the life of the infrastructure asset. This allows accounting for the foreseeable costs and benefits over that time horizon, where they are expected to occur. The appraisal period is usually for 60 years after scheme opening, which is used reasonably consistently in the sector. Allowances may be made for infrastructure that is expected to have longer-lasting benefits and costs after 60 years. TAG recommends that, in such cases, the analysis may cover up to a 100-year appraisal period from scheme opening as a sensitivity test. This is the recommended treatment, since large uncertainty is a feature of the very-long-term, and costs and benefits are heavily discounted in this period.

Question to the Department for Transport:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill on 28 July (HL9720), how many fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over operating on the high seas they intend to declare following the United Kingdom's ratification of the International Maritime Organization 2012 Cape Town Agreement for the safety of fishing vessels.

Answered by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill - Minister of State (Department for Transport)

The United Kingdom currently intends to declare 105 vessels upon accession of the International Maritime Organization 2012 Cape Town Agreement for the safety of fishing vessels.

Found: Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill CBE, Minister of State (Minister for Rail) 6 Our roadmap to an accessible

Found: Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill CBE Minister of State (Minister for Rail) 6 7 Our roadmap to an accessible

Found:

Found:

Found: Alexander 2025-09-18 Shipping Innovation Dinner No 25 Heidi Alexander 2025-09-26 Hitachi Dinner No 55 Lord Hendy

Found: Received gifts only) Heidi Alexander Nil Return Nil Return Nil Return Nil Return Nil Return Nil Return Lord Hendy