WITH the decision likely to be taken on the tram extension on Thursday’s (March 14) full meeting of Edinburgh City Council and against stiff opposition this time round, I cannot sufficiently express my disappointment in not having the findings of the Edinburgh Tram Inquiry.

Lord Hardie’s original objectives were clear: “This inquiry aims to establish why the Edinburgh trams project incurred delays, cost more than originally budgeted and through reductions in scope delivered significantly less than projected.” Having attended some sessions and watched others via the video feed, where key facts that impact on these objectives were clearly exposed in the evidence of the core participants, I am extremely disappointed not to see these issues reported by now.

Lord Hardie has spent in excess of £10 million on what will become, due to its lateness, an expensive academic and legal dissertation that benefits nobody, other than the legal profession who will have earned handsomely from this waste of money.

It has been 10 months since the last witness was interviewed and in that time we have heard not a peep from his Lordship, other than to contradict Councillor Adam McVey’s claim that the current tram extension team had engaged with the inquiry.

This time round, the tram extension is highly contested by a considerable body of people. The same issues arise: such as managing the interfaces on the utilities diversions and the track laying; the ensuing risk that falls on the people of Edinburgh; the fullness and balance of advice given by some officials; and issues of funding and authorisation.

Having watched the previous gross waste of money that represented the inquiry into the cost of the Scottish Parliament building and the inconclusive findings that held no-one to account, I feel that, after all the expectation this time round, the public will look on Lord Hardie’s report as “too little too late”.

John RT Carson,

Kirkliston Road,

South Queensferry.