Ting! Ting! The Edinburgh trams are coming. Or rather, the report of the Edinburgh Trams Inquiry is finally trundling into view. The BBC recently reported that the mammoth document had been sent to the printers and would land on a grateful public soon.
When the judge-led inquiry was announced, the First Minister said it would be “swift and thorough”. As that First Minister was Alex Salmond, it damn well ought to be thorough.
Alas, no one could accuse Lord Hardie’s inquiry of being swift. It has taken longer than the building of the tram line in question.
Work on the project began in 2007 and trams first ran from Edinburgh Airport to York Place in 2014.
Priced at £375 million in 2003 and expected to take three and a half years to build, it came in £400m over budget and five years late, despite being massively scaled back.
It was an epic saga of fighting politicians, managers and contractors that turned large parts of the capital into a building site for years.
As if infected by exposure to the nightmare, the inquiry became a byword for sloth itself.
📝 Sign up for Unspun – Scotland's top politics newsletter. Enjoy exclusive opinion and analysis from some of Scotland's best political writers and commentators sent directly to your inbox every weekday evening. Click here to sign up 👈
Lord Hardie’s look under the bonnet has taken nine years – longer than the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War – and cost taxpayers £13m, most of it going on staff and legal fees.
In the meantime, and without bothering to wait for the inquiry to lecture it, Edinburgh Trams has extended the line north to Newhaven.
Trams should start running all the way from the airport to the shore next week, although passenger-less ones are already ting-tinging round Leith as the drivers are trained.
Whatever Lord Hardie’s inquiry reveals and concludes, it’s hard to imagine it making much practical difference to the commuters on the line, or to the local residents and businesses simply relieved to put the construction chaos behind them.
It may, however, raise questions about the merit of public inquiries.
According to ministers, the point of these is “preventing recurrence”.
But some examine events and projects which are close to unique. There will not be another Edinburgh Tram project any time soon. Nor will there be another Scottish Parliament, the capital’s other great money pit, and which also spawned an inquiry.
In his report on the Holyrood building, Lord Fraser admitted: “I do not envisage another Parliament building will be constructed in Scotland in my lifetime or for many years after that and the circumstances of the Holyrood Project might accordingly be regarded as wholly exceptional.”
His recommendations boiled down to using more competent professionals instead of civil service amateurs, tighter oversight and a warning about working with ‘signature’ architects.
One reason some inquiries are so underwhelming is that they have dubious origins.
Opposition politicians love calling for them because it discomforts the government of the day.
While on the government side, inquiries are often used to get out of a hole.
Rather than some scandal forcing resignations, the issue can be passed along to an inquiry, which politicians can then hide behind knowing it will take years to report.
Those who order inquiries to satisfy a short-term demand know they will probably have moved on by when the findings emerge to an indifferent reception.
Blair had been nine years out of power when Chilcot reported.
But it would be wrong to think that, while some are sketchy, the £700m spent on public inquiries across the UK in the last 30 years has been wasted.
The other one in the news this week – Lady Hallett’s Covid-19 Inquiry, which is fighting the Cabinet Office over Boris Johnson’s personal messages – is sadly not a one-off event.
Covid, experts reckon, was not the “real pandemic” they had been expecting for decades, but a relatively mild curtain-raiser. The worst is yet to come, and so learning...
...want to read the full article? Sign up for free to the Unspun newsletter and receive it directly to your inbox every weekday night at 7pm. Click here 👈
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel