Transport Insights

The Department for Transport (DfT) has asked a member of its own board to carry out the “independent” review of the snafu that led to thousands of drivers on smart motorways being wrongly prosecuted, with no guarantee that the outcome will be published.

It has also admitted that National Highways is still working with the police to implement “a Home Office-approved solution to this issue”.

The “anomaly” identified was that, while there should be a delay between a variable speed shown on a motorway gantry changing and HADECs cameras detecting vehicles over the new limit, this has not always happened.

The DfT has claimed that National Highways has identified approximately 2,650 total erroneous activations since 2021, but the terms of reference for the review go back to 2019, when the upgrade of cameras began, “to ensure that everyone who has been impacted is identified”.

In a written ministerial statement on 16 December, roads minister Simon Lightwood, who has made a career of covering things up since arriving at the DfT, promised ‘an independent investigation into how this technical anomaly came about, to ensure that lessons can be learnt’. 

Transport Heidi Alexander has now appointed

Tracey Westall OBE, Non-Executive Director of DfT, to be the lead reviewer for this independent review.

I’m sceptical of any government appointed review being described as “independent” but appointing a member of the DfT board to lead an independent review invites ridicule.

The terms of reference include who knew what, when?

understand the process through which this issue was escalated within National Highways to the executive and board and when key stakeholders were informed

There is no target date for the outcome:

A final report setting out an assessment of the facts and recommendations will be issued to DfT. It is expected that this will take at least 18 weeks.

Bizarrely, while there is a promise to keep quite a lot secret:

Confidential or sensitive information (including, in particular, names, addresses or other information relating to an individual (with the exception of their job title/job description)) provided for the purpose of the review shall only be shared or made public to the extent that it is necessary to fulfil these terms of reference. Privileged information, if provided for the purposes of the review, shall not be shared or made public.

…there is no promise to publish the findings.

I have asked the DfT if it will guarantee to publish the findings. I am not optimistic.

Meanwhile, Lightwood continues to dodge questions about the wider impact of the fiasco. Asked by Luke Evans MP:

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment she has made of the potential impact of the speed camera anomaly on the numbers of commercial drivers where the incorrect enforcement of speeding has resulted in the [a] loss of employment, or [b] compromised the ability for prospective drivers to gain driving opportunities.

Lightwood replied:

This anomaly resulted in a very small number of people incorrectly facing enforcement action for speeding offences and the Police have begun the process of redress.

Anybody affected by the anomaly will be contacted directly and, where appropriate, be reimbursed and/or have points removed from the licence. Steps will be taken to remedy any incorrect prosecutions.

It’s almost as if Lightwood doesn’t want the public to have a full understanding of how problematic smart motorways really are.