Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

To ask His Majesty's Government how decisions by appropriate authorities to rely on an equivalent assessment under the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007, as amended by the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill, will be recorded, published and made available for public scrutiny.

Answered by Baroness Hayman of Ullock - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

The decision to defer under the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007 to an equivalent assessment is communicated to the applicant and the other assessment body. The decision to defer is also recorded and published on the Marine Management Organisation’s public register, enabling public scrutiny.

The BBNJ Agreement provides that public consultation is a requirement of the BBNJ EIA process so any equivalent assessment that is relied upon must also have undertaken necessary public consultation.

All licensing decisions are also placed on the Marine Management Organisation’s public register.

Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

To ask His Majesty's Government whether environmental assessments undertaken by regional fisheries management organisations are regarded as meeting the requirements under Part 4 of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill; and if so, how deficiencies in cumulative impact assessment and public participation will be addressed.

Answered by Baroness Hayman of Ullock - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

Part 4 of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Bill introduces changes to the marine licensing regime to meet some of the UK’s obligations to the BBNJ Agreement. Fisheries issues are not typically considered within the remit of the marine licensing regime.

Part 4 of the BBNJ Agreement provides that an environmental impact assessment may not be required under the Agreement where the impacts of an activity have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of another relevant body. Such bodies may include, for example, Regional Fisheries Management Organisations. This includes where the regulations or standards arising from the assessment have been designed to prevent, mitigate or manage potential impacts below the threshold for an environmental impact assessment under the Agreement, and those have been complied with.

Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

To ask His Majesty's Government how cumulative, ecosystem-wide and transboundary environmental impacts will be assessed where an appropriate authority defers to an equivalent assessment under the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007 as amended by the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill.

Answered by Baroness Hayman of Ullock - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

An appropriate authority will not, under the Marine Works EIA Regulations, be able to defer to another equivalent assessment unless that assessment meets all the requirements of Part 4 of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Agreement. The BBNJ Agreement sets out what should be included in in an assessment including cumulative effects and any transboundary issues.

If the appropriate authority concludes the equivalent assessment does not adequately address the relevant environmental considerations, it must undertake its own environmental impact assessment. This will ensure the relevant impacts are assessed.

Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:

To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will publish the letter sent by Lord Vallance of Balham to the Home Secretary following his meeting with the CEO of MBR Acres on 17 September 2025.

Answered by Lord Vallance of Balham - Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology will not be publishing this letter. Releasing internal correspondence at this stage would prematurely expose discussions that relate to the ongoing development of the government’s position on a sensitive policy area. The issues involve complex regulatory, scientific, and public safety considerations, and ministerial discussions include exploratory thinking, provisional advice, and options that have not yet been finalised.

Question to the Department for Transport:

To ask His Majesty's Government whether Number 4 Shaft at HQU/3D, the Queensbury Tunnel, has been subject to permanent strengthening.

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

National Highways undertakes annual examinations of the Queensbury Tunnel and its associated ventilation shafts due to their age and condition. These examinations monitor any changes to the structure and inform ongoing safety assessments. Evidence from these examinations shows that the tunnel lining has already collapsed in two locations between Shafts 3 and 4, and further deterioration of the lining is likely. However, the current assessed risk of Shaft 4 collapsing remains low. Given that the consequences of any failure would be significant, the priority for National Highways is to prevent any decline in the asset’s condition.

The most likely collapse mechanism previously identified related to failure of the tunnel lining close to the base of Shaft 4 which is why National Highways has strengthened the tunnel lining in this area to mitigate the risk. Failure of the shaft cap lining due to age & wet conditions, or failure of the shaft cap are less likely and these are things National Highways checks for in tunnel and shaft examinations.

Shaft 4 itself has not been permanently strengthened. The interventions undertaken to date have focused on reinforcing the tunnel lining at its base. Shaft 4 is located within the town of Queensbury, in a residential area close to an electricity substation and although the risk of shaft 4 collapsing is currently low, the consequence of failure is high, therefore National Highways wants to make sure that it does not allow the condition to deteriorate.

Question to the Department for Transport:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the most likely shaft collapse mechanism at HQU/3D, the Queensbury Tunnel.

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

National Highways undertakes annual examinations of the Queensbury Tunnel and its associated ventilation shafts due to their age and condition. These examinations monitor any changes to the structure and inform ongoing safety assessments. Evidence from these examinations shows that the tunnel lining has already collapsed in two locations between Shafts 3 and 4, and further deterioration of the lining is likely. However, the current assessed risk of Shaft 4 collapsing remains low. Given that the consequences of any failure would be significant, the priority for National Highways is to prevent any decline in the asset’s condition.

The most likely collapse mechanism previously identified related to failure of the tunnel lining close to the base of Shaft 4 which is why National Highways has strengthened the tunnel lining in this area to mitigate the risk. Failure of the shaft cap lining due to age & wet conditions, or failure of the shaft cap are less likely and these are things National Highways checks for in tunnel and shaft examinations.

Shaft 4 itself has not been permanently strengthened. The interventions undertaken to date have focused on reinforcing the tunnel lining at its base. Shaft 4 is located within the town of Queensbury, in a residential area close to an electricity substation and although the risk of shaft 4 collapsing is currently low, the consequence of failure is high, therefore National Highways wants to make sure that it does not allow the condition to deteriorate.

Question to the Department for Transport:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the risk of ventilation shaft collapse at HQU/3D, the Queensbury Tunnel.

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

National Highways undertakes annual examinations of the Queensbury Tunnel and its associated ventilation shafts due to their age and condition. These examinations monitor any changes to the structure and inform ongoing safety assessments. Evidence from these examinations shows that the tunnel lining has already collapsed in two locations between Shafts 3 and 4, and further deterioration of the lining is likely. However, the current assessed risk of Shaft 4 collapsing remains low. Given that the consequences of any failure would be significant, the priority for National Highways is to prevent any decline in the asset’s condition.

The most likely collapse mechanism previously identified related to failure of the tunnel lining close to the base of Shaft 4 which is why National Highways has strengthened the tunnel lining in this area to mitigate the risk. Failure of the shaft cap lining due to age & wet conditions, or failure of the shaft cap are less likely and these are things National Highways checks for in tunnel and shaft examinations.

Shaft 4 itself has not been permanently strengthened. The interventions undertaken to date have focused on reinforcing the tunnel lining at its base. Shaft 4 is located within the town of Queensbury, in a residential area close to an electricity substation and although the risk of shaft 4 collapsing is currently low, the consequence of failure is high, therefore National Highways wants to make sure that it does not allow the condition to deteriorate.

Question to the Department for Transport:

To ask His Majesty's Government how many tunnel ventilation shaft collapses on the UK’s railway network have been recorded.

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

Network Rail is responsible for maintaining most of the tunnels on Great Britain’s railways. It is not aware of any recorded instances of tunnel ventilation shaft collapses on the parts of the operational network it manages.

Question to the Department for Transport:

To ask His Majesty's Government whether National Highways have made an assessment of the infilling work at Ridge Road Bridge near Shepton Mallet (reference ESB/10m4ch).

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

National Highways (NH) last intrusive investigation of the infilling work undertaken at the Ridge Road Bridge was the trial hole work adjacent to the South span in May 2023 and the coring of the North and Centre spans in December 2023.

Since this work NH have been engaging with an Active Travel Group about investigating the re-opening of the south span of the bridge.

NH is currently still working through options, safety justifications, and ecological impact. Given the uncertainty over what the next phase of work is, it is not possible to place a timeline on it.

Question to the Department for Transport:

To ask His Majesty's Government what steps National Highways has taken to ensure that infilled bridges do not have voids beneath their spans.

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

National Highways use assurance and inspection processes to confirm that voids are not present beneath bridge spans. The process is NH check 12 months after completion of the infilling. NH checks that a void has not formed between the infilling and the underside of the bridge by drilling small holes through the deck and inspecting with an endoscope. If there is a void, it is pressure grouted to fill it. The infilled bridge is then visually examined every 12 months, the frequency for all Historical Railways Estate structures examinations.

Question to the Department for Transport:

To ask His Majesty's Government how many National Highways bridge infill schemes have been carried out by the contractor Hammond (ECS) Ltd.

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

The contractor Hammond (ECS) Ltd has completed 12 bridge infill schemes on National Highways bridges.