Transport Insights

Back on the subject of National Highways’ disastrous tree planting on its A14 scheme, the transport secretary has publicly rebuked the company for inaccurate evidence it gave to a Commons committee about who was a paying to (try to) put it right.

Looking back at the evidence given by its then chief executive, Nick Harris, and his subsequent non apology shows quite how arrogant the company – or at least Harris – is.

Here’s the original exchange:

Olivia Blake: I just want to pick up on what all this has cost in terms of the A14. In particular, what has so far been spent on putting this issue right? Going forward, what are the estimated costs of keeping on putting it right, if that makes sense?
Nick Harris: On the planting, that is a commercial conversation with the contractors. They have not met the quality standards, so that planting is at their cost.
Chair: Just to clarify, that falls on them, not the public purse.
Nick Harris: That falls on them, yes.
Olivia Blake: Is that true for all the trees that you have?
Nick Harris: It depends on how they have been established. For example, I mentioned earlier the issue of ash dieback. That is a cost that falls on us because that is our estate to manage.
Olivia Blake: So you are doing good contract management, in your opinion.
Nick Harris: We are doing good contract management. We are always seeking to improve how we manage our contractors. It is our responsibility.

Of course, the company was not doing good contract management. In a subsequent letter to the chair, Toby Perkins MP, Harris said he wanted to clarify – not correct – his evidence:

To date, National Highways has funded the replanting from existing project funds and contingencies, meaning this was absorbed in existing National Highways funding. Whilst we did not request additional funding, the costs have been met by National Highways from public funds, so I am keen to correct any misunderstanding of my evidence.

Not a whiff of contrition, just a suggestion that his entirely clear but wholly inaccurate previous statement had been misunderstood.

Perkins was decidedly unimpressed, despite an assurance from National Highways that “it was not Mr Harris’ intention to mislead the Committee”. In a letter to transport secretary Heidi Alexander in December, he wrote:

given the level of local and media interest in the specific case of the A14, I also find it very hard to understand how the Chief Executive was unaware about the costs incurred in replanting—and who paid for it—when appearing before the Committee.

In her reply to Perkins, Alexander wrote:

I share your concerns regarding the evidence provided to the Committee during your September session. I expect the highest standards of accuracy and transparency from National Highways leadership when engaging with Parliament and this example clearly falls below expectations.

It’s not the harshest rebuke to say that someone failed to meet “the highest standards” but there you go.

Of course, by the time the letter was sent and published, Harris had left, leaving Alexander to say that roads minister Simon Lightwood would

discuss these matters at his next meeting with the new, interim Chief Executive.