DEPUTY First Minister John Swinney would not change any of his decisions over the controversial Edinburgh trams project if he had the chance, an inquiry has heard.
Speaking at the Edinburgh Tram Inquiry, the then Finance Secretary said he was "satisfied" with his actions throughout the course of the scheme.
He admitted the decision to proceed with funding the project was made after a "frustrating" parliamentary vote to back it in 2007, because he did not want the minority SNP Government to be "curtailed by a trams project".
The probe, chaired by retired judge Lord Hardie, is examining why the scheme went significantly over-budget and delivered years later than first planned.
Swinney said: "I'm satisfied that the actions I took were appropriate for the office I had.
"There may have been minor transactional points which might have been done differently, there may have been issues which we could have expedited differently."
Jonathan Lake QC, senior counsel to the inquiry, then questioned if he was "happy" with his his actions, to which the Deputy First Minister said he was.
The Scottish Parliament voted in June 2007 to pursue the trams project, despite the SNP minority government setting out its opposition to it.
Swinney said the political landscape led his party to agree to deliver a £500 million grant.
He said: "We had been six weeks in office and it was clear we weren't going to change parliament's mind.
"We were concerned that there could have been some possibility the administration could have come under a challenge about staying in office.
"We didn't want the first SNP government in 70 years to be curtailed by a trams project."
The inquiry heard he asked Transport Scotland to "scale back" its involvement with the scheme to reduce the risk of the Scottish public purse being dipped into to fund it.
Swinney said he was trying to clarify that responsibility lay with the City of Edinburgh Council, which was the "promoter" of the project.
He added: "I have been around long enough to know people can come back asking for more."
The eventual £776 million bill was more than double the sum earmarked at the outset by a previous Labour-led administration.
The inquiry in Edinburgh continues.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel