Some take away’s from the Transport Committee: The roll-out and safety of smart motorways, HC 26 (Wednesday 30 June 2021)
Number 1
Failure of Highways England to retrofit SVD as assured in 2016 not a “mistake”
In 2016, the then Transport Select Committee was given assurances by Highways England that they would retrofit stopped vehicle detection technology and put it in going forward. That did not occur.
Asked if it was a “mistake”, Baroness Vere (Minister for Roads, Buses and Places, Department for Transport) replied “I do not think it is necessarily a question of mistakes being made”. It was “potentially a misunderstanding, or where clarity was not achieved…
Chair (Huw Merriman): You have not accepted the categorisation “mistakes”. You have talked about measures that need to be put in place, so I will put it this way. Rather than why did these mistakes occur, why did these matters not get addressed at the time? Who was responsible? To what extent does the Department for Transport put that responsibility, if indeed there is some, on to Highways England?
Baroness Vere: Again, I would say that the assurances that were given at the time did not have a time commitment attached to them. When I started discussing this back in July 2019, or probably slightly thereafter, it was very clear that we felt that we needed to work with the supply chain on ensuring that there was sufficient SVD available and then to roll it out as quickly as possible.
You will recall, back in 2020 when we were promoting the action plan, that it took a little time because there were a lot of discussions between us and Highways England to make sure that we were getting the fastest possible roll-out that we could. Again, one year later, there were more discussions with the supply chain and more learning from the existing roll-out. Then we were able to bring it forward. As you said, we have now brought it forward by six months.
Chair: …But we are now in 2021, as you are aware, and we were told that in 2016… While I absolutely acknowledge that you were not responsible because you were not there at the time, the Department for Transport was responsible because it had a requirement to manage Highways England, and Highways England were giving assurances and making promises to this Committee that were not being delivered. Ultimately, Highways England is held to account by Ministers in the Department. Even if you were not personally responsible, do you not believe that the Department is ultimately responsible for those assurances not being delivered?
Baroness Vere: Again, I do not know the detail of those assurances. I do not know what date you took away from those conversations as to when you felt SVD was going to go in. I can reassure you—
Nick Harris (Acting Chief Executive, Highways England): … I would like to repeat that the safety of smart motorways and all-lane running does not depend on stopped vehicle detection. This is something that we are adding to improve further the safety of those roads.
It is regrettable. Clearly, we were not as precise or as clear as we could have been about the timescales that were going to be involved in both developing and rolling out stopped vehicle detection. Looking back at the assurances that were given in 2016 and 2018, I think we have delivered on those. In 2016, we committed to piloting and trialling it on the M25, which we did.
Karl McCartney:…You have not yet published the evaluation you conducted of stopped vehicle detection technology in 2018. Do you have plans to do so? If not, why not?
Nick Harris: We published a report in 2016. The 2018 report was shared externally. We had to redact parts of it because there was some commercially sensitive information. It was released following a freedom of information request. I will make sure that it is available generally.
Chair: I want to come back to Mr Wilson. You are the chief highways engineer. Back in 2016, you told the predecessor Committee and Parliament in relation to stopped vehicle technology: “We are now confident that it works, and it will be part of the standard roll-out…going forward.” That was on 9 May 2016. That did not occur. Why did it not occur?
Mike Wilson (Acting Chief Executive, Highways England): It did occur. From May 2018, it was part of our standard specification going forward—
Chair: Sorry, on 9 May 2016 you told us that.
Mike Wilson: Yes. I was explaining earlier about the development work necessary to turn a new technology into a system that we could specify and procure. That work was undertaken. It involved an extensive operational trial. The commitment I gave was based on a trial on the M25, on a single link between two junctions, and then the operational pilot was put in place in 2017 on the M25 between junctions 23 and 27. It dealt with all the issues that I described earlier and—
Chair: Let me just interrupt. What you are saying is that following 9 May 2016 all-lane running smart motorways were fitted with stopped vehicle detection technology.
Mike Wilson: No. That is not what I am saying.
Chair: In that case, you did not correctly respond to us when you said you were confident that it worked and that it would be part of the standard roll-out going forward.
Mike Wilson: Forgive me, but it was part of standard roll-out going forward. Admittedly, I could have been clearer, when I made the commitment, that there was still development of the system that was necessary, but it was included as part of the standard specification from May 2018. …
Chair: But I am not interested in 2018. I am interested in the day after 9 May 2016 and whether you were then delivering all-lanes running without that technology, because you said you would not.
Mike Wilson: Sorry, I said that it would be part of the standard specification going forward.
Chair: Part of the standard roll-out going forward.
Mike Wilson: And it was. It was going forward as of May 2018.
Chair: Oh, come on. I’m sorry, but that is just not good enough. When you say, “going forward”, it does not mean in two years’ time. It does not need me as a lawyer to say that. We all know that is the case. I think sometimes it is better just to put your hands up and say, “It turned out not to be the case because we had supply issues,” or something else. But to give me that answer, I am sorry, it is just not good enough for Parliament.
Nick Harris: I cannot comment on that statement. We could absolutely have been clearer in 2016 about the timescales involved. We have clearly given the wrong impression there. I do not think that was the intention. We were very much focused on rolling out this improvement, and we are doing it successfully now. Clearly, we did not give the right impression then.