Asked by: Lord Moylan (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on 10 July (HC13240), what are the current overseas posts and locations classified as qualifying hardship posts for the purpose of additional journeys for staff posted overseas.
Answered by Lord Wood of Anfield - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
Given the large number of posts and locations in the scope of the Noble Lord's question, I will arrange for a list to be placed in the library, containing details of: (a) the 150 locations classified as qualifying hardship posts for the purpose of additional journeys for staff posted overseas, at the time that the previous government left office in July 2024; and (b) the six locations that have subsequently been removed from that list.
The Noble Lord will see from the aforementioned list that these arrangements are not new, and indeed have applied consistently under successive governments for a number of decades.
Below, in reference to HL2091 (tabled on 14 July 2026), is a list of the 150 locations worldwide, which – at the end of the previous government’s term in office in July 2024 – were classified as qualifying ‘hardship’ posts for the purpose of additional journeys for staff posted overseas. In the subsequent two years, up to July 2026, six locations have been removed from the qualifying list: Bamako, Buenos Aires, Panama City, Pyongyang, Santiago and Sarajevo.
Abidjan
Abu Dhabi
Abuja
Accra
Adamstown
Addis Ababa
Ahmedabad
Algiers
Al-Khobar
Almaty
Amman
Ankara
Antananarivo
Apia
Ascension Island
Ashgabat
Asmara
Astana
Asuncion
Baku
Bali
Bamako
Bandar Seri Begawan
Bangkok
Banjul
Beijing
Beirut
Belmopan
Bengaluru
Bishkek
Bogota
Brades
Brasilia
Buenos Aires
Bujumbura
Cairo
Cape Town
Caracas
Casablanca
Castries
Chandigarh
Chennai
Chisinau
Chongqing
Colombo
Conakry
Dakar
Dar Es Salaam
Dhaka
Djibouti
Doha
Dubai
Dushanbe
Freetown
Gaborone
Georgetown
Grand Turk
Guangzhou
Guatemala City
Hanoi
Harare
Havana
Ho Chi Minh City
Honiara
Hyderabad
Islamabad
Istanbul
Jakarta
Jakarta (ASEAN)
Jamestown
Jeddah
Jerusalem
Johannesburg
Kampala
Karachi
Kathmandu
Khartoum
Kigali
Kingston
Kingstown
Kinshasa
Kolkata
Kuala Lumpur
Kuwait
La Paz
Lagos
Lahore
Lilongwe
Lima
Luanda
Lusaka
Male
Manama
Manila
Maputo
Maseru
Mbabane
Mexico City
Minsk
Monrovia
Monterrey
Moscow
Mumbai
Muscat
Nairobi
N'Djamena
Nassau
New Delhi
Niamey
Nouakchott
Nuku'alofa
Panama City
Phnom Penh
Port au Prince
Port Moresby
Port of Spain
Port Vila
Pretoria
Pristina
Pyongyang
Quito
Rabat
Rio de Janeiro
Riyadh
San Jose
San Salvador
Santiago
Santo Domingo
Sao Paulo
Sarajevo
Shanghai
St George's
St John's
Stanley
Suva
Tashkent
Tehran
Tel Aviv
Tirana
Tristan da Cunha
Tunis
Ulaanbaatar
Victoria
Vientiane
Windhoek
Wuhan
Yangon
Yaounde
Yekaterinburg
Yerevan
In the vast majority of cases, the locations listed above have been classified as qualifying ‘hardship’ posts since that system of classification – and accompanying staff allowances – were introduced more than three decades ago. Assessments of ‘hardship’ take into account a number of factors that apply irrespective of the financial wealth and standard of living in each post, but which may mean that members of staff are required to take additional respite breaks for the benefit of their physical or mental health, in locations where – for example – there are high levels of air pollution (e.g. New Delhi or Beijing), high levels of crime (e.g. Port of Spain or Pretoria), or regular and ongoing security threats (e.g. Tel Aviv or Riyadh).
Asked by: Lord Moylan (Conservative - Life peer)
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 May (HL40), whether they have now made an estimate of the capital and ongoing operating costs of developing, launching and maintaining the proposed Great British Railways ticketing website and mobile application.
Answered by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill - Minister of State (Department for Transport)
Potential estimates will not be published in advance of the launch and completion of the procurement process, as these are commercially sensitive.
We have recently communicated to the supplier market our target of launching the procurement process in late Summer/early Autumn.
Asked by: Lord Moylan (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill on 19 June (HL718), what was the total value of Schedule 8 compensation payments made by Network Rail to Train Operating Companies resulting from rail trespass incidents in each of the last 30 years.
Answered by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill - Minister of State (Department for Transport)
Network Rail holds data on the estimated Schedule 8 costs arising from rail trespass incidents from 1 April 2014 onwards. The total value of the payments during this time can be found in the following table:
Volume of trespass related incidents and estimated costs of associated delays, annual, Great Britain, 2014/15 to 2025/26
Financial year | Volume of incidents1,2,4 | Costs3,5 (£million, current prices) | Costs (£million, 2025/26 prices) | Average cost per incident |
2014/15 | 6,415 | 33.6 | 46.7 | £ 7,300 |
2015/16 | 7,488 | 34.4 | 47.5 | £ 6,300 |
2016/17 | 8,336 | 44.0 | 59.7 | £ 7,200 |
2017/18 | 9,576 | 54.1 | 72.3 | £ 7,500 |
2018/19 | 9,798 | 61.2 | 80.2 | £ 8,200 |
2019/20 | 10,127 | 66.6 | 85.2 | £ 8,400 |
2020/21 | 9,410 | 35.7 | 43.5 | £ 4,600 |
2021/22 | 11,559 | 50.2 | 60.8 | £ 5,300 |
2022/23 | 11,583 | 64.9 | 74.4 | £ 6,400 |
2023/24 | 12,726 | 84.0 | 90.5 | £ 7,100 |
2024/25 | 13,611 | 86.5 | 89.8 | £ 6,600 |
2025/26 | 13,921 | 85.5 | 85.5 | £ 6,100 |
Notes:
1. Incidents are delay causing incidents attributed to XA,VA reason codes
2. An incident can appear in more than one rail period if delay was suffered in more than one period
3. Costs are an internal Network Rail estimate of the long-term revenue loss due to those incidents (based on the economics behind the Schedule 8 performance regime)
Source: Network Rail
4. Delay & Cancellation metric dashboard
5. Process for Performance Improvement (PfPI) Costs are from the Performance System database Business Objects attribution universe
Asked by: Lord Moylan (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill on 2 June (HL335), how many rail trespass incidents were recorded in each of the last 30 years; and what estimate they have made of the long-term revenue loss arising from those incidents in each of those years.
Answered by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill - Minister of State (Department for Transport)
Data supplied by Network Rail indicates that the volume of trespass incidents increased from 6,415 in 2014/15 to 13,921 in 2025/26 (an increase of 117 per cent).
Over the same time, when adjusted for inflation, the estimated cost of delays associated with trespass incidents rose from £46.7 million to £85.5 million (an increase of 83 per cent).
When adjusted for inflation, the average estimated cost per trespass incident has reduced over time, from approximately £7,300 in 2014/15 to around £6,100 in 2025/26.
Volume of trespass related incidents and estimated costs of associated delays, annual, Great Britain, 2014/15 to 2025/26
Financial year | Volume of incidents1,2,4 | Costs3,5 (£million, current prices) | Costs (£million, 2025/26 prices) | Average cost per incident |
2014/15 | 6,415 | 33.6 | 46.7 | £ 7,300 |
2015/16 | 7,488 | 34.4 | 47.5 | £ 6,300 |
2016/17 | 8,336 | 44.0 | 59.7 | £ 7,200 |
2017/18 | 9,576 | 54.1 | 72.3 | £ 7,500 |
2018/19 | 9,798 | 61.2 | 80.2 | £ 8,200 |
2019/20 | 10,127 | 66.6 | 85.2 | £ 8,400 |
2020/21 | 9,410 | 35.7 | 43.5 | £ 4,600 |
2021/22 | 11,559 | 50.2 | 60.8 | £ 5,300 |
2022/23 | 11,583 | 64.9 | 74.4 | £ 6,400 |
2023/24 | 12,726 | 84.0 | 90.5 | £ 7,100 |
2024/25 | 13,611 | 86.5 | 89.8 | £ 6,600 |
2025/26 | 13,921 | 85.5 | 85.5 | £ 6,100 |
Notes:
1. Incidents are delay causing incidents attributed to XA,VA reason codes
2. An incident can appear in more than one rail period if delay was suffered in more than one period
3. Costs are an internal Network Rail estimate of the long-term revenue loss due to those incidents (based on the economics behind the Schedule 8 performance regime)
Source: Network Rail
4. Delay & Cancellation metric dashboard
5. Process for Performance Improvement (PfPI) Costs are from the Performance System database Business Objects attribution universe
Asked by: Lord Moylan (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department for Transport on 29 June (HC12808), when they estimate they will deliver a full North-South new line between Birmingham and Manchester.
Answered by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill - Minister of State (Department for Transport)
The Northern Growth Strategy set out the Government’s long-term intention to build a new line between Birmingham and Manchester, following the delivery of HS2 Phase One and Northern Powerhouse Rail. In the meantime, we are learning lessons from HS2 and undertaking feasibility work with local partners before decisions on specification and delivery timescales are made.
Asked by: Lord Moylan (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office on 16 June (HC6053), whether the prevailing policy allows for pets resident at 10 Downing Street to be transported at public expense in vehicles in which the Prime Minister is not present.
Answered by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent - Captain of the King's Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard (HM Household) (Deputy Chief Whip, House of Lords)
Pets are not transported to Chequers independently of the Prime Minister’s family. There is therefore no additional cost to the taxpayer.
Asked by: Lord Moylan (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask His Majesty's Government what percentage of the total steel requirement for HS2 has been procured.
Answered by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill - Minister of State (Department for Transport)
94% of structural steel and 90% of the steel rebar required for the HS2’s Main Works Civils has been procured. Assessments from the Main Works Contractors working on the Civils structures indicate that around 70% of Rebar and over 80% of Structural Steel required across the programme has been delivered.
Steel procurement has also progressed for other aspects of the programme; however, exact percentages are not available at this time for the Stations or Systems contracts as the designs are under development alongside ongoing HS2 reset activities.
Asked by: Lord Moylan (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask His Majesty's Government what percentage of the steel yet to be procured for HS2 falls within product categories affected by the recent changes to steel import tariff rate quotas.
Answered by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill - Minister of State (Department for Transport)
An initial assessment of the Government’s Steel Strategy, including the changes to tariff rates on imported steel taking effect from July 2026, suggests that there will not be a significant impact on HS2 as the planned volumes of imported steel fall below the current quota requirement thresholds.
Whilst we do not have the percentage of steel that would be affected by the changes to import tariffs, estimates indicate that if the tariff had been in place last year, imports of Rebar across the programme would have accounted for 11.8% of the allocated annual national steel rebar quota. This figure drops to around 3% for other steel categories. HS2 Ltd expects these figures to lower this year.
Asked by: Lord Moylan (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill on 8 June (HL385), whether National Highways uses a standardised definition of a pothole on the strategic road network; and if so, what that definition is.
Answered by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill - Minister of State (Department for Transport)
National Highways does not use a standardised definition of a pothole. It inspects the strategic road network in accordance with the relevant part of the Design Manual for Roads & Bridges, which prescribes the regime, frequency, and requirements for inspecting the condition of road surfaces.
Asked by: Lord Moylan (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask His Majesty's Government what proportion of zero-emission heavy goods vehicles currently available for purchase in the United Kingdom are manufactured in the United Kingdom.
Answered by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill - Minister of State (Department for Transport)
The Department for Transport does not hold data on what proportion of zero-emission Heavy Goods Vehicles currently available for purchase in the United Kingdom are manufactured in the United Kingdom.