Poor internet and offices partly to blame for length Edinburgh Tram Inquiry

When the results of the Edinburgh Tram Inquiry – which was set-up to find out why the original Edinburgh Tram project went so far over budget and took so much longer to produce only a small section of the planned route – were unveiled in 2023 there was one question that most people were asking, and it had very little to do with what the Inquiry actually said. Many were asking how did the Inquiry take nine years to report its findings and cost over £13 million? Although we may never know the complete reason some answers are now out in public with Lord Hardie having given a written submission to the Finance and Public Administration Committee who are looking into why public inquiries take so long and cost so much.

In his submission Lord Hardie has said part of the problem was slow internet speeds in the offices they were using. The offices themselves – which were formally used by Creative Scotland – were said to have looked like being suitable but after moving in were found not to be. He also criticised the fact that the Inquiry had no statutory powers which meant he couldn’t compel people to appear or to get all the evidence needed from the Council.

Lord Hardie said: “Following my appointment as chair of the inquiry, I had to identify suitable premises with the assistance of the Solicitor to the Inquiry, whom I had appointed immediately following my appointment, and other civil servants unconnected with the ETI. I was offered and accepted the use of premises that were surplus to requirements of Creative Scotland. The rent was paid by the Scottish Government and the office premises had the appearance of a modern office with adequate IT connections. The appearance was deceptive and for almost six months staff struggled with inadequate IT connections which frequently failed.

“The effect on staff morale was significant and there was a considerable waste of time and money during that time. In the Report I refer to the fiasco of Vodafone failing to install a cable on different occasions for different reasons and failing to link the portals to a newly installed cabinet.

“Apart from accommodation it was necessary to appoint a Secretary whose early tasks included staffing the Inquiry office with document coders, an IT manager and others. Many of the staff were agency workers while others were civil servants electing to transfer to the inquiry. Because of civil service procedures the delay in civil servants, including the Secretary, moving to the inquiry resulted in delay to the initial progress of the Inquiry. The process of setting up the Inquiry with accommodation, staff and other resources gave the impression of our reinventing the wheel. There was little or no guidance to assist with this stage of the Inquiry.”

He also suggested that the cost of the Inquiry should have taken into consideration resources used which had been funded elsewhere from the government. If this had been done, he claimed, the Inquiry would only have cost the taxpayer an additional £8.7 million and not the £13 million oft-quoted.