​Findings of Lord Hardie’s tram inquiry report can’t just be brushed under the carpet - John McLellan

​As the Edinburgh tram project ground to a halt, I toured the route with the chief executive Richard Jeffrey, who assured me the absence of any construction work was because the crews were on a break.

A week after the Hardie Report confirmed a catalogue of misinformation, the tram inquiry report is not even a proper agenda item at today’s full council meeting

He insisted they were winning their legal arguments with the contractors, but it didn’t need a £13 million public inquiry to know it was mostly hokum.

Now, a week after the Hardie Report confirmed a catalogue of misinformation, it’s not even a proper agenda item at today’s full council meeting.

It’s just six paragraphs in the regular self-congratulatory Leader’s Report, four of which are about how well the Newhaven completion was managed, a stretch which cost not far short of £100m a mile. Well done, everyone, aren’t we wonderful?

Council leader Cammy Day says a report will be submitted to November’s transport committee, followed by debate at the December full council meeting, although that hasn’t been agreed.

But you don’t need Clairvoyant Cammy to know most councillors will agree that lessons were learnt, the Newhaven completion went like clockwork and it’s all in the past. And in the past, it must remain…

Except it’s not in the past. The council’s legal services chief Nick Smith stands accused of of misleading councillors as the project descended into chaos.

Mr Smith is accused of adding inaccurate claims to the reports that contractor disputes were “finely balanced”, so councillors would not realise the depth of the legal quagmire into which the council was sinking.

“Councillors rely upon the accuracy of reports to enable them to take informed decisions,” wrote Lord Hardie, noting a sentence Mr Smith inserted in one report “did not reflect what he believed at the time”. That, said Lord Hardie, “is inconsistent with the standards expected of officials and solicitors within a local authority.”

It’s hard to underestimate the seriousness of a senior judge levelling what is essentially an allegation of professional misconduct against any solicitor, never mind one responsible for all legal compliance in a major local authority, and it must surely be a matter for the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC).

Yet from the council’s relaxed response to Lord Hardie’s findings, it’s as if he’d reported a missed bin collection.

And if there is a debate today, the councillors’ code of conduct prevents any criticism of Mr Smith, even though he is at the heart of a damning judicial report.

I bear Mr Smith no personal animosity, in fact I quite enjoyed the conversation when he once visited me in the City Chambers to tick me off.

But personalities have nothing to do with it, and that cuts both ways. Just because it was over a decade ago, and Mr Smith is chief executive Andrew Kerr’s lynchpin in a culture of aggressive legal defence of the council’s reputation, does not mean it can be brushed under the carpet.

Unless councillors instruct otherwise, only Andrew Kerr has authority to refer this matter to the SLCC, and if nothing happens it will be a clear sign the authority thinks allegedly misleading councillors is no big deal.