The Daily Mail has reported that National Highways is some way off identifying and implementing a permanent solution to the issue that led to thousands of drivers being wrongly clocked for speeding on smart motorways.
The paper picks up on yesterday’s statement from roads minister Simon Lightwood and in particular the revelation that the problem was fully identified in October and prosecutions halted, adding that “speed camera enforcement on smart motorways was secretly switched off two months ago”.
Lightwood also said:
A Home Office-approved solution to this issue has now been agreed. National Highways will be working with the police to allow them to implement this solution as a priority.
However, the Mail reports:
But it has emerged that National Highways still does not fully understand how the fault occurred and a permanent solution won’t be found until next year.
In the meantime, when the camera enforcement system is switched back on, National Highways will have to provide daily updates to police on the times when they believe the camera system is not functioning properly.
Roads minister Simon Lightwood has claimed that drivers who break the law “can expect to be punished”, despite confirming that tens of thousands of drivers have got away with speeding offences because of National Highways’ latest technology failure on smart motorways.
In written parliamentary statement, Lightwood confirmed, but sought to play down, the fact that an “anomaly” over the settings on variable speed limit enforcement cameras occurred approximately 2,650 times over four years, leading to a similar number of wrongful prosecutions.
But that’s only half the story. As Lightwood told MPs:
Independently, the National Police Chiefs’ Council took action to instruct all affected police forces to cancel wider prosecutions related to infringements in progress, regardless of whether they were impacted by this issue. As a result, tens of thousands of people’s speed awareness courses are being cancelled, and thousands of historic fixed penalty notices and criminal justice prosecutions are being discontinued.
Lightwood also explained why his department had covered the problem up for around three months, without explicitly stating that it had done so:
Throughout this process, I have been clear with all partners that we must ensure our road network remains safe. We therefore took the decision, following a safety assessment from National Highways, not to undermine public confidence in enforcement and risk impacting driver behaviour before we had a solution to this issue approved and ready to roll out.
He ended his statement with an assertion that the facts have proven to be wholly untrue.
Compliance with the law is being enforced in a variety of ways across our roads, as has always been the case. If you break the law, you can expect to be punished.
As I commented yesterday, if tens of thousands of drivers breaking the law cannot be prosecuted because smart motorway technology is, once again, not up to the job, that is a major safety issue.
Claire Mercer of Smart Motorways Kill has also concluded that the claim that the Department for Transport (DfT) is still “assuring” 14 smart motorway evaluation reports going back three years is a fiction – and that roads minister Simon Lightwood lied to her about this.
Mercer, whose husband Jason was killed, along with Alexandru Murgeanu, on a smart motorway stretch of the M1 in 2019, co-organised the protest outside the DfT last month calling for the Post Opening Project Evaluation (POPE) reports to be released.
…it is right that we take the time to fully assure findings. This process is ongoing
As I wrote on Monday, when challenged over the “process” by Mercer’s MP, Sarah Champion, Lightwood resorted to claiming that a “wider assurance”, rather than the formal assurance for each scheme was happening. This is clearly a fiction.
Mercer’s solicitors, Irwin Mitchell, also wrote to the DfT to challenge the process. It told them that the reports:
are currently completing the final governance and approval stages
adding:
it is right that the department take the time to fully understand and assure findings prior to publication
Again, the pretence that a formal assurance process is happening has evaporated.
Mercer has seen through this and has not forgotten what Lightwood told her. She said:
Roads minister Simon Lightwood has admitted that no genuine assurance process is taking place that would justify his cover-up of National Highways’ evaluations of smart motorways.
Judging from Lightwood’s determination to hide these reports until he works out how to spin them, you might imagine that they show that the safety, economic benefits and environmental impact of individual schemes are not great
Asked:
what the assurance processes are under which the Post Opening Project Evaluation (POPE) of Major Schemes are conducted
Lightwood replied:
National Highways follows its established “Analytical Assurance Framework” for assuring POPE reports, which includes fourth line independent external expert analytical assurance from DfT.
As these are complex reports it is right that my officials take the time to provide summary advice of these reports in the round and undertake wider assurance to advise me on the quality of collective findings.
The first part appears to be untrue as National Highways does not have an analytical assurance framework that is separate from the DfT’s framework, but this is probably irrelevant as Lightwood is no longer claiming that this is still happening.
Instead he has made up a completely new process under which his officials supposedly group together a whole bunch of POPE reports to summarise them and carry out a fictional “wider evaluation”. Implicitly, he is admitting that no formal assurance process is being carried out.
To be fair, he is not actually saying either that an informal “wider assurance” process is happening, just that it is right that it should happen.
Of course, the point about such a process is that concern for the “quality of collective findings” does not mean that the individual reports need any further assurance before they can be released.
We are back to the reality – that ministers are working out to spin – or bury – the bad news.
Recent parliamentary answers from transport ministers suggest that Labour is completely stuck on many of key issues it should be addressing.
In response to a question from fellow Labour MP Darren Paffey about the “planned timetable is for announcing further details on the regulation of private electric scooters, as indicated in the Advanced Manufacturing Sector Plan”, roads minister Simon Lightwood said:
The Government is committed to pursuing legislative reform for micromobility vehicles when parliamentary time allows.
We understand the importance of providing a clear legislative timeline and my Department is working with colleagues across government to secure this.
So another example of when being committed to something doesn’t mean actually doing anything about it. Maybe just extend the trials again?
Other MPs have been asking what is happening about pavement parking, including Labour MP Damian Egan. Lilian Greenwood is fully aware that it’s an issue that needs to be addressed, but:
The Government fully understands the serious problems that vehicles parked on the pavement, and other obstacles on the pavement, can cause for pedestrians, especially for people with mobility or sight impairments and disabled people with wheelchairs, prams or pushchairs. To inform next steps, the Department has considered the potential options, assessing the costs and benefits to households and businesses, which includes well-being, social isolation and economic opportunities. This assessment drew on existing evidence, including the 2020 pavement parking consultation. We will announce the next steps and publish our formal response as soon as possible.
It’s now the fifth anniversary of that pavement parking consultation closing. Neither the Tories nor Labour has had the courage to take it forward.
And then there is the promised and widely trailed road safety strategy, “the first for ten years”.
Our Road Safety Strategy is under development and will include a broad range of policies. We intend to publish by the end of the year.
But in subsequent answers, such as this one, she appears to have backed away from this target date, saying:
More details will be published in due course.
“In due course” is of course what officials and ministers say when they can’t or don’t want to give a date. I’ve asked the DfT to clarify and transport secretary Heidi Alexander has been in front of the Transport Committee this morning.
Of course, if Lightwood is to be believed, the department is still carrying out “assurance” of evaluations of smart motorway schemes that National Highways completed in 2022.
The question is, are they incompetent, or just kicking the tricky stuff into the long grass?
The roads minister has backed the continued suppression of a raft of evaluation reports on the safety and effectiveness of smart motorway schemes, some of which were due for publication three years ago.
I revealed in September that ministers are sitting on a huge amount of data on the controversial schemes, in the form of multiple post opening project evaluation (POPE) reports, including at least nine that were due for completion in 2022.
Although the reports were produced by National Highways, the Department for Transport (DfT) called them in and has not allowed them to be published, on the grounds that it is “undertaking its final assurance”.
An event at the DfT tomorrow will highlight the continuing suppression of the reports and call on ministers to release them in the name of transparency.
The event is a collaboration between myself and Claire Mercer of the Smart Motorways Kill campaign, who wrote to DfT ministers to invite them to attend.
She has received a reply from Simon Lightwood, as the minister responsible for the strategic network, who has both declined to attend and backed the patently false claim that the reports are still undergoing assurance. He wrote:
National Highways does evaluate the economic impact after schemes have been operational for five years and we are committed to transparency, but this is a complex process, and it is right that we take the time to fully assure findings. This process is ongoing, and we will provide an update on publication in due course.
The phrase “in due course” indicates that Lightwood is not even prepared to say when “an update on publication” will be provided, let alone when – or even if – the reports will actually be published.
In backing this lie, Lightwood has firmly owned the cover-up of what are looking increasingly like very damaging findings.
The event will take place at the Department for Transport, 33 Horseferry Rd, London, SW1P 4DR at 12:15pm on Wednesday 5 November.
The Department for Transport (DfT) has rowed back on an apparently false claim from a minister that the previous government “closed” the Ely Area Capacity Enhancements rail scheme.
As I noted last week, roads minister Simon Lightwood stated in a written parliamentary answer that:
The Ely Area Capacity scheme was closed by the previous government…
This was inconsistent with what has been said elsewhere, including by Lightwood, and Network Rail considers the scheme to be awaiting a funding decision.
I asked the DfT to clarify Lightwood’s claim that the scheme had been “closed”.
It did not do so. Instead, a spokesperson told me:
We recognise the importance of the Ely Junction scheme, and we fully anticipate it will be part of a pipeline of projects to be considered as part of future funding decisions.
There is a strong case for Ely Junction, and we are committed to working with a broad range of stakeholders to support its inclusion in the future pipeline.
A minister’s answer to a parliamentary question this week includes a claim that appears to be untrue but would be just as controversial if it were true.
I wrote yesterday about Simon Lightwood’s response to a parliamentary question from shadow transport secretary Richard Holden, about the Ely Area Capacity Enhancements scheme, making the point that Lightwood contradicted rail minister Peter Hendy’s claim that the government is “backing rail with the funding needed”.
The Ely Area Capacity scheme was closed by the previous government and it has not been possible to reprioritise it at the most recent Spending Review.
Firstly note that Lightwood’s claim that is has not been possible to fund the scheme, which again gives the lie to Hendy’s claim.
But Lightwood also claimed that the Tories had “closed” the scheme.
Although it is true that neither Labour nor the Tories have provided funding for the scheme, this claim is not matched by information in the public domain.
It’s still unclear what budget, if any, the Department for Transport (DfT) has for the local road enhancement schemes that it “green lit” in July and the roads minister’s reply to a parliamentary question has muddied the waters.
By way of a reminder, in August I asked the DfT under FOI what the combined or individual budgets are for Major Road Network (MRN) and Large Local Major (LLM) schemes over the period of the spending review.
It implicitly admitted that “this information” exists, but refused to disclose it, claiming that:
Ministers are actively considering matters that directly relate to this information, and further decisions are expected to be made in due course.
As I have observed, the absence of a clear budget for MRN/LLM schemes leaves Labour looking like it is guilty of what it criticised the Tories for – making unfunded transport spending announcements.
That same month, the 10-year infrastructure strategy said the government was “investing £1 billion to enhance the road network and create a new Structures Fund that will repair major structures like bridges, flyovers and collapsed roads”.
That billion could include the £590m for the LTC, which is part of the overall road network, although that would involve an element of double counting as that sum is promised elsewhere in the strategy.
But this is where it gets murky. In its July press release, the DfT said it was “providing £1 billion to enhance the local road network and create a new structures fund”.
Simon Lightwood has been made the new roads minister following the shambolic reshuffle that saw Lilian Greenwood removed from the Department for Transport (DfT) after showing too much enthusiasm for tackling pavement parking, before being partially re-instated.
However, Greenwood will only be a part-time minister as she has another job in the Whips Office.
It’s not clear what she will do at the DfT as it has still not bothered to tell the public which minister is responsible for which bit of transport policy. Lightwood is still listed on its website as minister for local transport, while Greenwood and new minister Keir Mather have no responsibilities or roles listed.
Based on the announcements linked to him, Mather appears to have responsibility for maritime and aviation policy.
I have previously noted Greenwoods clear statements (several months apart) to take action “very soon” on pavement parking and that a parliamentary answer from Lightwood suggested that he was in no hurry to do anything.
Time will tell, but he may have been given the roads brief to take forward Labour’s Plan for Change by not changing very much.
Transport Insights 
Leave a comment