Tram inquiry rocked by ‘bung’ claims – but details are kept secret

BOMBSHELL claims that corrupt staff working on the Edinburgh tram project solicited or received cash payments are being kept private by the inquiry into the fiasco.

The decision was taken yesterday by the probe’s chairman, Lord Hardie.

He is leading the investigation set up to examine why the transport initiative was delivered three years late at hugely inflated cost of £1billion. The dramatic corruption claims were made by former transport official Neil Renilson.

He was tasked with running trams for Transport Edinburgh Limited (TEL) once the line was built by council-owned firm Transport Initiatives Edinburgh (TIE).

In a seemingly unprecedented move Mr Renilson was not asked to explain his claims in the public session, but to submit them privately in writing to the inquiry by Monday. The decision was questioned by a lawyer but Lord Hardie said: ‘I don’t want disclosures made publicly on allegations until at least I know what they are.’

Mr Renilson made his extraordinary allegation in response to a final question put to him by senior counsel Jonathan Lake, QC.

He asked: ‘Now I’m going to ask you one more question, and can I impress upon you this time that what I’m looking for initially is a yes or no answer – we’re going to be quite limited.

‘It’s do you have information to the effect that there were employees or agents of TIE soliciting or receiving corrupt payments?’ Mr Renilson replied: ‘Yes.’ Instead of asking Mr Renilson to lay out the information to the inquiry in front of the public – as is normal procedure – Mr Lake instead asked: ‘Would you be willing to provide that information to the inquiry? Will you do so please by midday on Monday?’

Lord Hardie clarified the evidence would be ‘in writing’ – not in spoken evidence. Mr Renilson agreed to provide this.

The unusual move was questioned by Roddy Dunlop, QC, from law firm DLA Piper.

But Lord Hardie told him: ‘I think in the first instance I want to see the allegations.’

The Mail asked inquiry representatives if Mr Renilson’s written evidence would be made available publicly and why it was decided to review it in private.

A spokesman said: ‘An allegation of this nature needs to be considered in order to establish the facts.’

Mr Renilson appeared before the inquiry last month, but his evidence was cut short.

The inquiry, now in recess, will resume in January.