Bridge scheme 'must learn lessons' from tram project

The Scottish Government was today urged to learn lessons from Edinburgh's trams project as it prepares to announce the main contract for the new Forth road bridge after MSPs have gone into recess for the elections.

Edinburgh West Liberal Democrat MSP Margaret Smith said the timing of the announcement, expected in April, meant there would be no opportunity to scrutinise details.

She warned it could pave the way for whoever was elected in May to blame its predecessors for any problems that arose with the 2 billion project.

Ms Smith, whose constituency includes South Queensferry, said: "It's about the detail of the contracts and it's the detail where things unravel and lead to more money.

"They should learn lessons in terms of what happened with the contract for the trams.

"We're going to see a contract signed off by one government and whoever comes in will be saddled with a contract they have not been part of."

Ms Smith also criticised the government over a guarantee, discussed in private by the Scottish Parliament's finance committee, that oil giant BP would receive 100 million if its pipeline is damaged during construction of the new bridge.

"They are saying they had to have this in private because it's a great state secret there is a pipeline there when everyone knows where the pipeline is."

Green MSP Patrick Harvie accused the government of a cover-up. He said MSPs had a right to know about the potential for massive pay-outs. He added: "Ministers knew about this issue years ago, yet they withheld the information from Parliament until the legislation had been passed."

Transport minister Keith Brown said the contract was being announced in April because the bridge was a vital project and the government wanted to proceed quickly.

A Transport Scotland spokesman said the finance committee had agreed to hear the BP issue in closed session on advice from the Centre for Protection of National Infrastructure.

He added: "While security issues would have still meant that we would have sought a private hearing during the Bill process, there would not have been sufficient detail to discuss this meaningfully over that period."