When You're in a Hole, Stop Digging!

6th March, 2006

We can only assume that ENT have now realised they have been found out over the dubious £77m cost comparisons (see Have You Been Misled). To try and cover their tracks, they have put the following in their March newsletter in their NET balls column:

Netballs
NET have just released information clarifying their initial estimate in 2000 of £77m for Phase Two. It seems they didn't include such things as the cost of any land or financing. Oh, and by the way, they also omitted to budget for any trams. No, stop laughing — it's an easy mistake to make...

So ENT's current claim seems to be that NET have just released the caveat information explained in the "misled" article, that qualified the £77m. This is wrong. Unfortunately for ENT we can confirm that all the caveat information has been in the public domain since 2001.

We have asked ENT a number of times to give us their original reference to the £77m. They have refused to say exactly but confirm they got the figure from a City Council report. (The communications BACIT has had with Cllr Gordon Wheeler, Chair of ENT can be found here). We can only therefore assume that they can't find a reference without the caveats and explanations, so are trying to hide their blushes?

Wherever BACIT has found the £77m mentioned, it explains quite clearly that the £77m figure is a very basic outline route comparison cost, and includes no land or trams. The caveats and purpose of this figure and the estimate have always been explicit and clear in every public source we have found.

BACIT realised ENT were making an error and suggested they re-check their sources, but have been categorically told that "information (ENT) publish is carefully checked"

It is possible ENT could be basing their current claim of the recent release of information on BACIT's mention of a Freedom of Information Act request, but unfortunately for them they are yet again wrong.

ENT claim to be having problems with Freedom of Information Act (FOI) requests. However BACIT asked for confirmation of the information in the "misled item" under the FOI simply as it was the easiest way to get hold of it quickly, and just to double check our facts and re-confirm what we already knew to be the case. So all the information has been public for 5 years there is no big mystery over the £77m figure and no recent release of the caveat information (as ENT are trying to imply). Is this yet another case of ENT misleading us?