Tram chiefs must start behaving like leaders and resolve impasse

THE more we know about the progress of the plans to build Edinburgh a modern tram system, the clearer it becomes that the project – which can bring great benefits to the capital and Scotland – has been badly mismanaged.

Up until now the city council and the company it set up to oversee the project, TIE, has heaped the blame for delays and the likely cost over-run on Bilfinger Berger, the lead firm in the construction consortium. Barely a day goes by without a councillor or TIE taking a pot-shot at the German company, knowing full well that it is forbidden by the terms of its contract from defending itself in public.

While it is the case that Bilfinger has been particularly rigid in its insistence on sticking strictly to the terms of the contract with TIE – which allows the firm to charge more when asked to do work not laid down in writing – it is obvious they are by no means the only villains of the piece.

The trams project was given the go-ahead by the council with substantial financial support from the Scottish Government, and the local authority is responsible for its delivery.

There is a clear line of responsibility in place, with the policy made by the politicians – who are accountable to the electorate – and the day-to-day management of the project delegated to TIE.

As the building of a tram scheme was a complicated process, it was agreed that if disputes arose between the contractors and TIE there would be a procedure under which an independent adjudicator could be brought in to rule on who was in the wrong, and therefore who would carry the can financially.

It is significant that, in three of the four cases which have gone to this adjudication, TIE has lost and the contractors have won. This fact in itself puts the huffing and puffing of councillors over Bilfinger into context and suggests they are indulging in a crude attempt to shift the blame away from themselves.

Instead of blaming the contractor, the council – as the body ultimately responsible for the project – should be showing some leadership, not to mention humility, and bring TIE and all the contractors together to try and resolve disputes in a more mature, businesslike manner.

That they have not done is reprehensible. And the council's case is further weakened by recent interviews given by transport convener Gordon MacKenzie, who struggled to present his case and does not even appear to know basic facts about the project.

Given all of this, and with the cost set to rise by at least a further 100 million above the original 545m planned, something has to be done to get a grip on a project which can still bring benefits to the city and the nation.

With the management of the project a shambles and escalating costs, MSPs' calls for an investigation by the spending watchdog Audit Scotland should be heeded immediately.

However, the council and TIE should also be aware that if they do not show leadership, take charge of the situation and become more constructively conciliatory, then a Holyrood-style public inquiry may yet have to be held.