HOLYROOD INQUIRY TRANSCRIPT

 

Thursday 13 November 2003 (Morning Session)

 

Rt Hon the Lord Fraser of Carmyllie QC opened the hearing at 10.00 am

 

1.      Mr Campbell QC: (Counsel for the Inquiry):  If there are no preliminary matters, Sir, the first witness today is Mr Graeme Munro, who is the Director and Chief Executive of Historic Scotland.  He will be followed by Mr John Hume, the former Chief Inspector of Historic Buildings.  This afternoon, Mr Alex Salmond MP will give evidence to the Inquiry. 

 

2.      Good morning, Mr Munro, and thank you very much for coming to the Inquiry; it is much appreciated.  Can you confirm that you are Graeme Neil Munro; that you have a degree from the University of St Andrew’s in modern languages, and you have worked for the Scottish Office since 1968? 

 

3.      Mr Munro:  That is correct. 

 

4.      Mr Campbell QC:  You were, I think, Director of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Directorate in 1990 and the first Chief Executive of Historic Scotland when it became an Executive Agency of Government; that was in 1991, I think.  Is that correct?

 

5.      Mr Munro:  It is. 

 

6.      Mr Campbell QC:  And you remain in that post? 

 

7.      Mr Munro:  I do. 

 

8.      Mr Campbell:  Although you have other Civil Service experience in other branches of policy making? 

 

9.      Mr Munro:  Yes. 

 

10.  Mr Campbell QC:  Mr Munro, I am sure that Historic Scotland is involved in a multiplicity of activities.  Can you try to give me a pen sketch — or a verbal sketch, rather — of those activities as between Historic Scotland and Scottish Ministers? 

 

11.  Mr Munro:  Yes.  We are, as you said in your opening comments, an Executive Agency; we are part of the Scottish Executive; we were formerly part of the Scottish Office.  We are directly responsible to Ministers for the discharge of all their responsibilities for the built heritage of Scotland.  That embraces the processes of listing historic buildings, scheduling ancient monuments, an important role in the administration of the consent system associated with listing and scheduling, the paying of grants to private owners, archaeology, and the direct management and presentation to the public and conservation of over 300 properties in the care of Scottish Ministers. 

 

12.  Mr Campbell QC:  In the main, do these responsibilities arise under statute:  the Ancient Monuments Act 1979 and the Town and Country Planning Listed Building and Conservation Act 1997? 

 

13.  Mr Munro:  Indeed, that is so.  All our powers are statutory powers, and all that we do we do on behalf of Ministers. 

 

14.  Mr Campbell QC:  And that includes the operation, maintenance and care of a number of buildings in care or state guardianship.  Is that correct? 

 

15.  Mr Munro:  That is so. 

 

16.  Mr Campbell QC:  Can I ask you to cast your mind back to 1997 and tell me first of all whether you had any involvement in the thinking of the Scottish Office prior to the election as to where a Scottish Parliament might be located? 

 

17.  Mr Munro:  No, I cannot recall any involvement prior to the May election in 1997. 

 

18.  Mr Campbell QC:  After that election, do you recall being consulted by persons in the Scottish Office with responsibility for the devolution programme? 

 

19.  Mr Munro:  The earliest contact I can recall was a meeting in June 1997 after the then Secretary of State Donald Dewar had taken the view that the Old Royal High School, certainly by itself, was not an adequate site for the planned Scottish Parliament.  I had a visit from two colleagues in the Scottish Office who wanted to sound us out as to whether or not inserting a debating chamber in the courtyard behind St Andrew’s House was a possibility or not.  I re-indicated at that stage that we thought that was certainly a possibility worth exploring. 

 

20.  Mr Campbell QC:  OK.  You gave us a little sketch earlier on of the range of Historic Scotland’s responsibilities.  Are those responsibilities mainly to do with either granting or refusing consent or do they stray into the advisory field as well? 

 

21.  Mr Munro:  It both involves giving advice and a role.  In the case of listed buildings, the Planning Authority is the main authority, with ourselves as a sort of backstop, if you like.  Where the local Planning Authority is minded to give listed building consent, or in a case like this involving a Government Department, listed building clearance, then they would normally refer the case to us.  The position is slightly different with Government Departments from the ordinary vast majority of cases, which are from private individuals or other foundations. 

 

22.  Mr Campbell QC:  Private developments? 

 

23.  Mr Munro:  Yes. 

 

24.  Mr Campbell QC:  Seeking to alter or affect in some way a listed building? 

 

25.  Mr Munro:  Yes. 

 

26.  Mr Campbell:  Is a reference to you compulsory in respect of certain categories of listed building? 

 

27.  Mr Munro:  Talking about the non-governmental buildings, if a local Planning Authority is minded to give consent for the alteration of a category A or category B listed building, the top two categories, then they must refer that case to us.  And we, acting on behalf of Scottish Ministers, always have the discretion to recommend to Ministers that they call a case in for their own decision.  That happens in a very small minority of cases each year. 

 

28.  Mr Campbell QC:  Otherwise you give advice, as it were, behind the scenes to Planning Authorities? 

 

29.  Mr Munro:  We give advice both to Planning Authorities and to developers and we encourage them to come to speak to us at as early a stage as possible so that we can help to move towards a workable solution.  Would it be helpful, Sir, if I commented on the position with Government Departments? 

 

30.  Mr Campbell QC:  Thank you; I was just framing the question.  Go ahead. 

 

31.  Mr Munro:  Thank you.  There is a publication, which I referred to in my statement, called ‘The Care of Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments by Government Departments in Scotland’.  It sets out a very specific role for us, which I think is highly relevant to this particular case.  This is paragraph 3.11.1 of that document, which states that: 

 

32.    “Government Departments are responsible for obtaining listed building clearance or conservation area clearance as appropriate from the relevant Planning Authority...”

 

33.  In this case that was the City of Edinburgh Council.

 

34.    “However, Departments should consult Historic Scotland early in the development of a project prior to seeking the Planning Authority’s clearance about any matter involving the repair, restoration or alteration.”

 

35.  The document then goes on, I shall not quote it in full, to make the point that Government Departments should be exemplars in their approach to these issues.  Our role is to provide advice and to help Government Departments, whether Scottish Executive or indeed any other Government Department operating in Scotland, to put a case to the Planning Authority which is of a high standard, and we would hope would win their approval. 

 

36.  Mr Campbell QC:  Yes, that is in some contrast, is it not, to the legal position of Government and Government Departments in relation to the need for planning permission?  I think notices can be given by Government Departments, but ultimately Government Departments can proceed to develop without the necessity of planning permission.  Is that right? 

 

37.  Mr Munro:  I would say that the process for listed buildings is very similarly parallel to that for general planning, which Tom Aitchison and Andrew Holmes described yesterday.  It runs in parallel. 

 

38.  Mr Campbell QC:  Right.  In any event, that document you have referred to, are you telling us, gives encouragement to Government Departments to behave as if they were private individuals? 

 

39.  Mr Munro:  Yes. 

 

40.  Mr Campbell QC:  And to do so to the best and highest standards? 

 

41.  Mr Munro:  Indeed. 

 

42.  Mr Campbell QC:  Can we move to August of 1997, Mr Munro?  Did you attend a meeting at or about that time in relation to possible choices of site for the Parliament? 

 

43.  Mr Munro:  I do not recall a meeting in August itself necessarily.  There was an early brainstorming discussion, which I referred to in my statement.  I could not put a date on that; it may have been as early as June.  That was very much a question of thinking laterally, thinking out loud with colleagues in the core Scottish Office about possible sites within Edinburgh. 

 

44.  Mr Campbell QC:  Did you write to Mr Lawrie on 7 August 1997, having seen a minute of 5 August from, I think, Mr Lugton recording a conversation which the Secretary of State had had with Mr Geddes and Lord Provost Milligan of the Edinburgh City Council on the previous day? 

 

45.  Mr Munro:  That is correct.  Yes. 

 

46.  Mr Campbell QC:  Could you please look at HS/1/001?  Thank you.  Can we see this?  This is under your authorship and it is a regular style of minute, I think: 

 

47.    “Sight of this minute” —

 

48.  That is a reference to the one I have just referred to.

 

49.    “prompted me to speak to Barbara Doig to establish what progress is being made.”

 

50.  Was that progress towards site selection? 

 

51.  Mr Munro:  Yes.  The meeting with the Lord Provost and Councillor Geddes had been to explore sites within the city.  I was conscious of having had the earlier conversation I had mentioned already.  I was simply recording in this internal minute within Historic Scotland that I had contacted Barbara Doig just to say that we would hope to continue to be involved in that process. 

 

52.  Mr Campbell QC:  Mr Lawrie was one of your colleagues at that time.

 

53.  Mr Munro:  Indeed. 

 

54.  Mr Campbell QC:  So this did not go outside Longmore House? 

 

55.  Mr Munro:  No, no. 

 

56.  Mr Campbell QC:  It looks here as if you are asking to be kept informed and to attend site selection meetings where any part of the historic environment is likely to be affected. 

 

57.  Mr Munro:  That is right; and I was given that assurance.  This minute records a telephone conversation which I had with Barbara Doig when I made the point, which was well taken and was followed up on. 

 

58.  Mr Campbell QC:  It is suggested from time to time, Mr Munro, that Historic Scotland is regarded by the Scottish Executive, or by other parts of the Scottish Executive, as something of an irritation; as a part of Government which may be seen as being there to block development proposals rather than to facilitate them.  I am sure you are quite familiar with the way in which Historic Scotland is regarded by the developer community, but is that fair within Government? 

 

59.  Mr Munro:  I do not think it is fair.  I think what is fair is that people were conscious of the fact that where a listed building is involved there are processes to be gone through.  And the processes are well set out and well understood.  It was recognised on a number of occasions, explicitly by John Gibbons on one occasion in October 1997, that we have a formal statutory role to play; and he felt quite comfortable with that.  Our efforts right from the start were to be constructive and I think right through the files you will find references to that; that our discussions with all parties were designed to be constructive. 

 

60.  Mr Campbell QC:  And this is very much in advance of any formal planning application; this is you advising the promoters of a new civic building? 

 

61.  Mr Munro:  Yes. 

 

62.  Mr Campbell QC:  Could you look at the next page, please, HS/1/002?  This is your colleague Mr Emerson writing to Mr Purves in Victoria Quay.  Who was Mr Purves at that time? 

 

63.  Mr Munro:  He was part of Planning Services; I am deducing that from the address PLS Division 1.  I should perhaps make the point that Richard was commenting in response to an invitation to give comments. 

 

64.  Mr Campbell QC:  Mr Emerson at that time — we will hear from him tomorrow, I think — was the Territorial Officer for, I think, South or North Edinburgh. 

 

65.  Mr Munro:  He covered the city centre; he was one of our Principal Inspectors of Historic Buildings. 

 

66.  Mr Campbell QC:  And he is presently the Chief Inspector of Historic Buildings?

 

67.  Mr Munro:  Yes.

 

68.  Mr Campbell QC:  So he is responding to Mr Purves of Planning, and he is particularly responding in relation to Calton Hill on the first page and Leith and Morrison Street on the second page? 

 

69.  Mr Munro:  That is right. 

 

70.  Mr Campbell QC:  Can we just look and see what he says here?  He notes the presence of two A-listed buildings; he agrees with the assessment that the site would have maximum civic presence; he notes with surprise that the assessment does not identify “this site” as providing the opportunity to create a purpose-built Parliament; and the site would demand the best of modern architecture.  Can you recall what he is actually commenting on here? 

 

71.  Mr Munro:  I confess I cannot.  There must have been some document on which Richard was commenting, which must have come from Planning Services.  I do not recall seeing that. 

 

72.  Mr Campbell QC:  You do not know in particular if he was commenting on proposals by EDI Ltd to develop at Regent Road? 

 

73.  Mr Munro:  I do not think so at this stage. 

 

74.  Mr Campbell QC:  He says just below the middle of the page: 

 

75.    “I am unclear as to where the monorail would run but this seems a hare-brained suggestion.”

 

76.  Does that trigger your memory at all for what the contents of the scheme were? 

 

77.  Mr Munro:  No, Sir, it does not.  I do not recall a proposal for a monorail; it certainly did not last very long because the idea was not around for long. 

 

78.  Mr Campbell QC:  You are not quite as dismissive about a funicular link to Calton Road. 

 

79.  Mr Munro:  No.  It would need “care”, as he says, given the problems of the hill. 

 

80.  Mr Campbell QC:  Is that a coded comment, Mr Munro? 

 

81.  Mr Munro:  No, I think it is to be taken at face value; it would need “considerable care”.  It is not impossible but not easy to achieve. 

 

82.  Mr Campbell QC:  We can assume, can we, that this minute is a response to a consultation request from Planning Services? 

 

83.  Mr Munro:  Yes. 

 

84.  Mr Campbell QC:  And on the next page, HS/1/003, he is commenting very carefully within his remit as an inspector of historic buildings, not about the general desirability of the site for a Parliament, both in respect of Leith and Haymarket.  And he anticipates a meeting the next day.  Did Mr Emerson go to that meeting on your instructions? 

 

10.15 am

 

85.  Mr Munro:  He would not have required instructions from me to attend that meeting; he would have attended it in his own capacity.  I was kept broadly aware of developments.

 

86.  Mr Campbell QC:  Could we look at document HS/1/004 please?  Again another minute, and I am afraid there is rather a long series of minutes, Mr Munro, but if you would just be patient with me I will take you through them.  This time to Mr Gordon who at that time was heading the Constitution Group, I think.

 

87.  Mr Munro:  Yes.

 

88.  Mr Campbell QC:  This is September 1997.  Do you have that?

 

89.  Mr Munro:  Yes, I do.

 

90.  Mr Campbell QC:  You are concerned evidently about the reported views of a senior Scottish Office civil servant allegedly saying to somebody in Jones Lang Wootton that Historic Scotland’s views on the siting of the Parliament were a major constraint.

 

91.  Mr Munro:  Yes.

 

92.  Mr Campbell QC:  How did that come about?

 

93.  Mr Munro:  Richard Emerson attended a meeting on the morning of 26 September.  He telephoned me in the course of the meeting that he was concerned that our position had been misunderstood, let us say.  Our position from the very early stage had been that a development at Calton Hill/Regent Road was eminently possible — either new-build or an adaptation of St Andrew’s House or some combination of the two.  We had been quite consistent in our views on that.  So it came as quite a surprise to Richard when he heard this reported comment at the meeting.

 

94.  The response which I had several days later from Robert Gordon to my minute indicated that what he thought had happened was that comments made, quite properly, that listed building issues would have to be addressed at that site had perhaps been taken to mean that there would be more problems than we certainly envisaged.

 

95.  Mr Campbell QC:  So this is you, as it were, laying down a marker with Mr Gordon that you are anxious to co-operate but there are statutory processes to be got through whether he likes it or not, really?

 

96.  Mr Munro:  Yes.  That is right.  And in fairness, as I think was said yesterday about planning, I think the Scottish Office as it was at that time, and the Executive subsequently, was anxious that they should go through all the proper processes and respect those.

 

97.  Mr Campbell QC:  If you turn to HS/1/005, the next page, you note in the top two lines:

 

98.    “We have not seen minutes of this meeting.”

 

99.  And that is a reference to a meeting on the previous page on 21 August?

 

100.          Mr Munro:  Yes.

 

101.          Mr Campbell QC:  Is there anything odd that you were not minuted or did you later discover that it was just an omission?

 

102.          Mr Munro:  I do not know whether minutes of that meeting were produced or not; we had not seen minutes at that stage.  I do not even now have a copy of a minute.  Events were moving very quickly at this stage and were almost overtaking each other.

 

103.          Mr Campbell QC:  Yes.

 

104.          Lord Fraser:  But in the tradition of the Civil Service, Mr Munro, you are quite strong in your views in this.  Look how you open paragraph 6:

 

105. “I am dismayed that our clear views on the comparative merits… are reportedly being misrepresented”.

 

106.          It would convey to me that you were not best pleased with the acknowledgement of the role of Historic Scotland in this site selection.

 

107.          Mr Munro:  I think our concern was that the views that we had expressed had not been adequately communicated; that we had been signalling from an early stage that this was certainly a possible site with all the potential; and we felt that was being overlaid, if you like, by too great a concern over the formal listed building consent processes which had to be gone through.

 

108.          Mr Campbell QC:  Anyway, you were clearly dismayed when you wrote this memo?

 

109.          Mr Munro:  Yes. 

 

110.          Mr Campbell QC:  Did this dismay persist? 

 

111.          Mr Munro:  No.  I was much reassured by the response I got from Robert Gordon several days later.

 

112.          Mr Campbell QC:  Yes.  And it looks as though, from paragraph 6, that Richard Emerson either left the meeting or spoke to you shortly after it, as he was sufficiently concerned.  Is that your recollection?

 

113.          Mr Munro:  That is my recollection.  Richard came back from that meeting to the office and he drafted a minute. We had tried to contact colleagues by telephone, as the first sentence of paragraph 1 brings out.  Had we managed to establish telephone contact this minute might not have been sent, but we felt that we had to put down a marker.

 

114.          Mr Campbell QC:  Mr Gordon replied to you on 30 September, that is document HS/1/006, and he notes at paragraph 2 — soothing you no doubt — that it was helpful to have the restatement of Historic Scotland’s position; and he records the need to meet with Historic Scotland’s approval and the:

 

115. “need to be deliverable at a price which was affordable”

 

116.          Can I ask you that in general terms the affordability of a state project or a Government project is not really something that you are concerned with?

 

117.          Mr Munro:  It is not a direct concern and it is not our main role.  That said, we are always conscious of cost issues for all developers, and in later minutes you will see that we were very conscious of the need to avoid unnecessary expense.

 

118.          Mr Campbell QC:  Well, I can understand that in relation to buildings in care or properties of Historic Scotland where the public is admitted.  Obviously you have to show a return on your investment there.

 

119.          Mr Munro:  Yes.

 

120.          Mr Campbell QC:  But in this advisory stage it would be fair to say, would it not, that Historic Scotland was not really concerned with the budget for a Parliament?

 

121.          Mr Munro:  No.  It was certainly not part of our responsibilities.

 

122.          Mr Campbell QC:  No.  And for that reason you would not have been party, I do not think at this stage, to, for example, the Building User Brief which was in circulation?

 

123.          Mr Munro:  No.

 

124.          Mr Campbell QC:  Mr Gordon says in the middle of paragraph 2:

 

125. “We were aware of the sketches prepared for EDI … which seemed to do amazing things to St Andrew’s House to accommodate the Debating Chamber within that building.  (I understand you had expressed your reservations to Dr Gibbons.)” 

 

126.          Is that a reference to you, Mr Munro?

 

127.          Mr Munro:  I assume so.  Whether he meant me personally or “you” as representing Historic Scotland I am not absolutely clear at this point in time. 

 

128.          Mr Campbell QC:  Are you able to recall any reservations you had about EDI’s plans for Regent Road/Calton Hill?

 

129.          Mr Munro:  Our reservations were certainly not reservations of major principle.  There were proposals at one stage which involved demolition of the courtyard.  It was eventually demonstrated that the Chamber could be accommodated within the courtyard and indeed the Page and Park scheme, which was eventually drawn up and presented to Ministers at the end of the year, puts the Debating Chamber in a different location altogether.

 

130.          Mr Campbell QC:  Yes.  Mr Gordon articulates his understanding in relation to the EDI proposal.  I would just like to ask you one more question about this.  Paragraph 4 on HS/1/007:

 

131. “I am sorry if you think that Historic Scotland have been embarrassed by actions of my Group or others associated with this exercise: but on the evidence of some of EDI’s recent behaviour (which has caused the Secretary of State considerable annoyance) I would not be surprised if they were indulging in tactics designed to drive a wedge between the Secretary of State’s advisers.”

 

132.          Can you comment at all on what that is all about?

 

133.          Mr Munro:  I am afraid I cannot.  We gave advice to EDI as we would to any other developer.  Our dealings with them were always on a strictly professional advisory basis.  This was not an issue for us. 

 

134.          Mr Campbell QC:  OK.  Well, if Mr Gordon comes back we can perhaps ask him about that. 

 

135.          Had you by 10 October or thereabouts reached a view, Mr Munro, as to which of the options available Historic Scotland might prefer?

 

136.          Mr Munro:  Yes. 

 

137.          Mr Campbell QC:  Can I ask you to look at HS/1/008?  The general question is:  had you reached a view as to a preference?

 

138.          Mr Munro:  Yes.  This minute refers back to a meeting which had taken place the previous day with John Hume and Richard Emerson present, and it records our views on the St Andrew’s House site/Regent Road site where we are making it clear that we would be prepared — more than prepared:  we were happy — with either a scheme which involved new-build or a single-site solution.  Of those two options our preference was for a single-site solution accommodating the entire Parliament Building within the confines of the old St Andrew’s House.

 

139.          Mr Campbell QC:  Right.  So that is what we might call the courtyard solution.

 

140.          Mr Munro:  Yes.

 

141.          Mr Campbell QC:  And essentially that debating chamber would look southwards, would it not, over the Waverley Valley?

 

142.          Mr Munro:  Yes, that is right.  I might add that there had been a meeting in September, 5 September I think, at which we had expressed a view recorded by the Secretary of State’s Private Secretary that of the three options then on offer — Haymarket, Leith and Calton Hill — our clear preference was for the Calton Hill site.  So this minute of 10 October should be read almost in that context.

 

143.          Mr Campbell QC:  Yes.  Did you reach that corporate view, if I can put it that way, on a variety of grounds or really on strict Historic Buildings grounds?

 

144.          Mr Munro:  Our role was essentially to take the Historic Buildings view.  At both Leith and Haymarket the Historic Buildings interest was fairly marginal and not crucial to the decision.  In terms of the Calton Hill site we were, I think, keen to demonstrate that, despite the views which some people might hold, we were very open to the idea of a good quality listed building being adapted for a new use with a quality intervention.  We also saw economic benefit for the east end of the city centre, which at that time was going through a slightly rocky patch with many buildings standing empty.  That was a benefit which we saw from the Calton Hill site, and which in fairness when the Holyrood site eventually emerged was equally applicable there.

 

145.          Mr Campbell QC:  And that is a reference to Waterloo Place and the buildings on both sides?

 

146.          Mr Munro:  Waterloo Place, St Andrew’s Square, York Place; the whole of the east end of the new town was then going through a period of economic downturn.

 

147.          Mr Campbell QC:  OK.  Could you turn to HS/1/010?  This is Mr Brown writing to Robert Gordon inviting him as Accounting Officer to approve expenditure on four feasibility studies.

 

148.          Mr Munro:  Yes.

 

149.          Mr Campbell QC:  And you are copied into it.  You are not in fact mentioned in it, except your views are reflected, I think, at paragraph 11 which is on HS/1/011 and also in paragraph 18 towards the end on HS/1/013 where you support the appointment of Page and Park.  Can I take it that Historic Scotland was consulted in advance of this memo going for approval?

 

150.          Mr Munro:  Yes, that is the case.

 

151.          Mr Campbell QC:  The thrust of this is to depart from normal tendering procedures, is it not, and to go for what is called a single tendering option for feasibility studies?

 

152.          Mr Munro:  Yes, that is right.  The question posed to us really was:  did we think that this was a firm which could do the job well?  And we were very happy to support that, given our experience of them in other cases. 

 

153.          Mr Campbell QC:  As far as you are concerned, is that a legitimate type of enquiry as to whether or not you approve of a nominee firm for a particular piece of work?

 

154.          Mr Munro:  I think it is a very practical common sense approach to learn from the experience of colleagues.

 

155.          Mr Campbell QC:  Did you have input into this memorandum in terms of its content?

 

156.          Mr Munro:  We were certainly consulted about the principle of the statement; whether we were consulted about the precise wording I cannot recall at this point in time.  But certainly we were consulted about the burden of the message, which was that Page and Park were a firm which we would support. 

 

157.          Mr Campbell QC:  And did you subsequently work with Page and Park to help them to produce a feasibility scheme for Regent Road and Calton Hill?

 

158.          Mr Munro:  We did through our Historic Buildings Inspectorate in the way I described earlier, which was to help them to frame proposals which would be likely to win the approval of the Planning Authority.  Richard Emerson, who you are seeing tomorrow, worked particularly closely with Page and Park on this scheme.

 

159.          Mr Campbell QC: Yes. Mr Munro, when it became known that Holyrood was potentially available, how quickly were you consulted? If I tell you that it seems to have come to the attention of Ministers first on 3 October 1997, that may help you.

 

10.30 am

 

160.          Mr Munro: The earliest written record I have been able to find in my files is 27 November when Alistair Brown minuted to Anthony Andrew and records that he had been in touch with John Hume on the position of Historic Scotland. That contact obviously had been made some time before 27 November, but that is the first written record I can find of it. I am conscious that there was a great deal of commercial sensitivity around the Holyrood site at that stage. I think it is probable — I cannot put it higher than that — that I was told orally of Holyrood coming into the frame some time in the course of October or early November.

 

161.          Mr Campbell QC: Can we just look at that please, on page HS/1/014? Thank you. Is that last reference one to paragraph 4 in document HS/1/014?

 

162.          Mr Munro: Indeed.

 

163.          Mr Campbell QC: We will hear about that from Mr Brown, I am sure.

 

164.          Could we now look, please, at document HS/1/016, which is a note from Mr Anthony Andrew, recording a meeting with your colleague Mr Hume, Dr Gibbons and himself to explore your concerns in relation to Queensberry House. Now, it is clear that you did not have personal involvement in this meeting, so to save time, is it better that I take this evidence from Mr Hume?

 

165.          Mr Munro: He certainly would be able to speak to it from direct personal experience.

 

166.          Mr Campbell QC: Right, shall we just leave that, then?

 

167.          Mr Munro: There is only one point, Sir, that you might wish to pick up on. In the last substantive paragraph of Anthony Andrew’s minute, he referred to a telephone conversation with myself on 4 December, which was to clarify the question of the street lines.

 

168.          Mr Campbell QC: Thank you for drawing that to my attention. That is page HS/1/017. Is that it?

 

169.          Mr Munro: Yes, that is it.

 

170.          Mr Campbell QC: “There are Historic Scotland buildings at Thomson’s Court which might have a role to play in the wider development of the site and… should be discussed with Mr Graeme Munro.”

 

171. “He also has details of the utilisation of the Royal Palace outbuildings along Horse Wynd.”

 

172.          I think that is now where the Art Gallery is, is it?

 

173.          Mr Munro: It is, yes.

 

174.          Mr Campbell QC: Could you help me with Thomson’s Court, just to locate it?

 

175.          Mr Munro: Thomson’s Court is adjacent to the Holyrood site. I do not understand the reference to Historic Scotland buildings. We have no buildings there. That must have been a misunderstanding at the time of the meeting. He may have meant listed buildings. It was rather the covering minutes to which I was referring: from Anthony Andrew — the covering minute to that document.

 

176.          Mr Campbell QC: Thank you, that is page HS/1/015.

 

177.          Mr Munro: Yes.  It says,

 

178. “We did not cover Historic Scotland’s concern about the street line.”

 

179.          Mr Campbell QC: What was your concern about the streetline?

 

180.          Mr Munro: We were concerned that the street scape of the lower Canongate and Holyrood Road should not be radically altered. That is part of the urban landscape, if you like, of that part of the Old Town. The issue really was whether the building itself had to come to the street line, or whether — as is indicated in the footnote to the document — it was acceptable, as we said, that there be a wall with a railing if necessary, just to continue the sense of enclosure.

 

181.          Mr Campbell QC: Yes. Were you able to take a view about that at that time?

 

182.          Mr Munro: Yes. We indicated that we were not asking for the building itself to come right to the street line; that a wall would be adequate.

 

183.          Mr Campbell QC: How far set back from the street line is Queensberry House?

 

184.          Mr Munro: Well, effectively the wall would follow broadly the line of existing pavements round the site.

 

185.          Mr Campbell QC: OK.  Were you made aware of any potential security requirements for a Parliament building at or about this time, or did that come later?

 

186.          Mr Munro: We were aware that there were security issues, which was part of the discussion about where the building came to. For security reasons, I understand they were not too happy that the building itself should be right on the heel of the pavement.

 

187.          Mr Campbell QC: So, in case it rears its head later in the Inquiry, would it be fair to say that you had some sensitivity to security issues as early as December 1997?

 

188.          Mr Munro: Yes.  I think only in this respect.

 

189.          Mr Campbell QC:  Not from this minute, obviously, but from other communications?

 

190.          Mr Munro: Yes.

 

191.          Mr Campbell QC: Now, an important document, Mr Munro, in the progress of advice to Ministers is Mr Alistair Brown’s minute of 6 January 1998: document HS/1/020, please, in this sequence.

 

192.          Mr Munro: Yes.

 

193.          Mr Campbell QC: And, as we now know with the benefit of hindsight, of course, this was on the eve of the announcement of the late Secretary of State’s decision, and is the last important piece of advice given up to Ministers. Did you have any input into this minute?

 

194.          Mr Munro: I do not recall specifically having input to it, but I would be surprised if we had not been consulted about what it said in it about our interests.

 

195.          Mr Campbell QC: Had you had the opportunity to see Scottish & Newcastle’s own assessment of their site, produced by DM Hall, at an earlier date?

 

196.          Mr Munro: I cannot at the moment give you a 100% confident answer on that.

 

197.          Mr Campbell QC: When I remember the number, I will show it to you and see if that jogs your memory.

 

198.          Were you consulted about the observations made in this minute about Queensberry House?

 

199.          Mr Munro: We were certainly fully aware of what is described there: the fact that a survey had been carried out by Simpson & Brown, which came up with a figure of £6·9 million.

 

200.          Mr Campbell QC: Yes. And that had been work carried out quickly over the last fortnight of December?

 

201.          Mr Munro: Yes, that is correct.

 

202.          Mr Campbell QC: Did you have a chance to check or look at the figure of £6·9 million? Were you content with it?

 

203.          Mr Munro: I did not personally look at that figure in detail, but Mr Hume offered a comment at around this time — on 8 January, when he offered the comment that perhaps an adequate job to a high standard could be done for a cost in the region of £4 million. But John then went on to say very clearly, as recorded in a minute by Anthony Andrew dated 9 January, that this was simply an off-the-cuff impression, so it was in no way a considered view at that stage.

 

204.          Mr Campbell QC: OK. Can we look at that, please, on HS/1/025? It is Mr Andrew recording an informal discussion with Mr Hume recording an informal discussion with Mr Hume, who expressed surprise at £6·9 million. He thinks this is a Rolls-Royce job; his instinct was that an adequate job could be done at the region of £4 million, but it is an off-the-cuff impression. And he is suggesting that there might be scope for having our own quantity surveyors — that is, the Scottish Office’s quantity surveyors — look at Simpson & Brown’s figures.

 

205.          What is meant by the reference to Historic Scotland’s concerns in that paragraph?

 

206.          Mr Munro: I think “concerns” is perhaps the wrong word; meeting Historic Scotland’s “expectations”; Historic Scotland’s “view” of what would be appropriate.

 

207.          Mr Campbell QC: I mean, you are not a quantity surveyor, and I do not think Mr Hume is.

 

208.          Mr Munro: No.

 

209.          Mr Campbell QC: But clearly to analyse costs, estimates of that kind, you need a particular set of skills, don’t you?

 

210.          Mr Munro: Yes. Yes.

 

211.          Mr Campbell QC: Does Historic Scotland have those skills on the staff?

 

212.          Mr Munro: Yes, we do.

 

213.          Mr Campbell QC: And did you at that time?

 

214.          Mr Munro: Yes.

 

215.          Mr Campbell QC: Ordinarily, then, would something like the Simpson & Brown feasibility study go to your quantity surveyors for cross-checking?

 

216.          Mr Munro: Not when it was being done by a third party. We tend to use our surveyors for work on our own properties in care.

 

217.          Mr Campbell QC: That would stay with the surveyors in the Scottish Office then?

 

218.          Mr Munro: Yes.

 

219.          Mr Campbell QC: Thank you very much.  Could you look at MIS/1/006 just before I leave it? Perhaps I can show you the paper copy, because it might be easier for you to recall the document if you see it in context. My question is whether you had seen that or had an opportunity to see that?

 

220.          Mr Munro: I think I probably did see this document at the time.

 

221.          Mr Campbell QC: Thank you. Just put it to one side now, Mr Munro, if you would. Can you recall a parliamentary question on about 1 December 1997 by Mr Donald Gorrie in relation to Historic Scotland’s role in advising the then Secretary of State about the location for a new Parliament? Can you put that in context for me?

 

222.          Mr Munro: The question, as I recall it, asked whether the Secretary of State had had representations from Historic Scotland, and whether he would publish those. And the answer which was given was to the effect that Historic Scotland, as an Executive Agency within the Scottish Office, was fully involved in advising Ministers about the historic buildings aspects of the proposals.

 

223.          Mr Campbell QC: If we move on, now, Mr Munro, just to rule it out. Did you have any part in selecting the winner of the designer competition to design the new Parliament?

 

224.          Mr Munro: No, none whatsoever.

 

225.          Mr Campbell QC: Did your organisation?

 

226.          Mr Munro: John Hume was invited to be part, I believe, of the selection process.

 

227.          Mr Campbell QC: You mean, Mr Hume was invited to sit on a technical panel which supported the main selection panel. Is that right?

 

228.          Mr Munro: Yes, exactly.

 

229.          Mr Campbell QC: And did he do that, as far as you know?

 

230.          Mr Munro: Yes, I believe so.

 

231.          Mr Campbell QC: Yes. Could we move on now to November 1998, Sir? Now I do understand that this is taking us beyond the time period where other witnesses have given evidence, but I am going to be trying not to bring Mr Munro back to the Inquiry, so with your permission —

 

232.          Lord Fraser: Yes.

 

233.          Mr Campbell QC: — I will just proceed through the chronology of documents Mr Munro has provided.

 

234.          This is new ground for us, Mr Munro, so we will just go at walking pace, if you don’t mind.

 

235.          Mr Munro: Yes. Thank you.

 

236.          Mr Campbell QC: November 1998, document HS/1/026, please.

 

237.          Can we see Mr Hume, here, writing to the Private Secretary to the Secretary of State, indicating that certain investigations have been carried out at Queensberry House?

 

238.          Mr Munro: Yes, that is correct.

 

239.          Mr Campbell QC: Were those at Historic Scotland’s behest?

 

240.          Mr Munro: Yes they were. We suggested that, to understand the building properly, some standing building archaeology was required. Queensberry House had gone through many changes over the centuries, and it was not a building which had been thoroughly researched before. The work carried out by Addyman & Kay and John Lowrey produced a much deeper understanding of the building than previously.

 

10.45 am

 

241.          Mr Campbell QC: Who are Addyman & Kay and John Lowrey?

 

242.          Mr Munro: Addyman & Kay are a firm of archaeological consultants; John Lowrey is an academic in Edinburgh University.

 

243.          Mr Campbell QC: Right. Presumably in architectural history?

 

244.          Mr Munro: In archaeology. I could not give you his precise title.

 

245.          Mr Campbell QC: Right. We see from this minute that the listing category of Queensberry House was stepped up from B to A. It may not be of significance, but can you just outline for me the mechanism by which that is done and what criteria are applied?

 

246.          Mr Munro: The process of listing is done in a variety of ways. The whole of Scotland has been listed, and we are going through the country on a geographical basis, parish by parish, re-listing and re-surveying. This particular area, if my memory serves me correctly, had not been re-surveyed for quite some time. Therefore, the new information which came to light was highly relevant. We do move to list for the first time, or to enhance the listing, if new information comes to hand. We do not simply rely on an area-by-area approach. In this particular case, John Hume took the view that the previous listing was an “underlisting”, if you like, in terms of the historical importance of the building. The new information supported that. I believe that, even without that new information, we would probably have upgraded the listing in any case when we came to do the geographical re-survey.

 

247.          Mr Campbell QC: Is listing or re-listing or upgrading of listing essentially an administrative act not requiring any form of legislation?

 

248.          Mr Munro: It is done under legislation, and it is an administrative act.

 

249.          Mr Campbell QC: Does it require ministerial consent?

 

250.          Mr Munro: Not to specific cases.

 

251.          Mr Campbell QC: No. Thank you.

 

252.          Now, Mr Munro, I wonder if you can outline for me, at the stage in 1998 when designs were beginning to emerge and ideas were beginning to gel in relation to the new Parliament building, what you saw as the key issues between yourself and the Scottish Office. That is to say, issues on which you would expect to be asked to advise.

 

253.          Mr Munro: We were providing advice on a number of issues. An archaeological investigation was carried out of the basic Holyrood brewery site on our recommendation, and the eventual out-turn cost on that was broadly within the estimate which we had made. The eventual out-turn cost was of the order of £850,000; we had estimated something in the region of £750,000 to £1 million. That cost included the standing buildings archaeology as well.

 

254.          Mr Campbell QC: The standing building archaeology of Queensberry House?

 

255.          Mr Munro: Yes.

 

256.          Mr Campbell QC: Because that was the only building, I think, which was to be retained on the site?

 

257.          Mr Munro: That is correct. The archaeology was done, I believe, in a very constructive way. We were conscious of the timescale and the wish of the developers to get the contractors on site as soon as they had all the necessary consents. So the archaeology was done on a progressive basis. As parts of the brewery site were cleared, the archaeologists went in and did their work. That was all designed to minimise delay.

 

258.          Mr Campbell QC: Can I just ask you from where did you become sensitive to the need for speed?

 

259.          Mr Munro: I think we were always conscious of the wish to make progress.

 

260.          Mr Campbell QC: Whose wish?

 

261.          Mr Munro: Ministers’ wish.

 

262.          Mr Campbell QC: Ministers’ wish. I interrupted you; you were telling me about archaeology.

 

263.          Mr Munro: I have covered the broad outline of what the issues were on archaeology. As far as the site as a whole was concerned, we flagged up the importance of getting a building sensitive to its site, in a World Heritage site, Outstanding Conservation Area, adjacent to a Royal Park and a Royal Palace, right in the heart of the Old Town of Edinburgh.

 

264.          Mr Campbell QC: Can we just pause there, again for definition purposes? The World Heritage site is a UNESCO designation, as I understand it.

 

265.          Mr Munro: That is correct.

 

266.          Mr Campbell QC: Not having any place in United Kingdom planning law?

 

267.          Mr Munro: That is correct.

 

268.          Mr Campbell QC: And there are very few such sites in the United Kingdom?

 

269.          Mr Munro: I could not tell you how many there are in the United Kingdom as a whole. There are four in Scotland.

 

270.          Mr Campbell QC: Yes. And the one we are concerned with embraces, I think, Edinburgh’s Old and New Towns?

 

271.          Mr Munro: That is correct.

 

272.          Mr Campbell QC: Yes. An Outstanding Conservation Area, I think, is a creature of statute?

 

273.          Mr Munro: It is.

 

274.          Mr Campbell QC: Where do we find reference to it?

 

275.          Mr Munro: In the Conservation Area legislation. The local authorities define Conservation Areas, and we can approve some of them as “outstanding”. The Outstanding Conservation Areas qualify for additional financial assistance from ourselves and local authorities.

 

276.          Mr Campbell QC: Is the term “outstanding” a descriptor of its outstanding architectural status, or does it mean something different?

 

277.          Mr Munro: No, effectively it is recognising that it meets criteria which are of a higher nature than those required just for Conservation Area status by itself. The main benefit, as I say, is additional financial support.

 

278.          Mr Campbell QC: Thank you. And are the criteria for these designations — not including a World Heritage site — to be found in the memorandum of guidance which is published by Historic Scotland?

 

279.          Mr Munro: They are.

 

280.          Mr Campbell QC: And is that a document which has ministerial approval?

 

281.          Mr Munro: Yes, it has. Basically, it carries the same force as departmental circulars do.

 

282.          Mr Campbell QC: So it does not have legislative authority?

 

283.          Mr Munro: It is based on legislation; it is drawn from legislation.

 

284.          Mr Campbell QC: It is an argument that I have had with you before, Mr Munro. I do not think it has the force of Regulations or Statutory Instruments, but it is certainly very strong guidance, is it not?

 

285.          Mr Munro: Yes indeed.

 

286.          Mr Campbell QC: So far as development within an Outstanding Conservation Area or a World Heritage site is concerned, is that something automatically that Historic Scotland would expect to be consulted on? Or is the first port of call, as it were, the local authority?

 

287.          Mr Munro: The statutory authority on listed buildings and planning issues and Conservation Areas is the local planning authority; in this case, the City of Edinburgh Council. So they were, as you say, the first port of call.

 

288.          Mr Campbell QC: And that would be true in relation to listed building consent as well?

 

289.          Mr Munro: Absolutely, yes.

 

290.          Mr Campbell QC: And again for completeness, that is another statutory control, is it not, on works for listed buildings?

 

291.          Mr Munro: Yes.

 

292.          Mr Campbell QC: Sorry, this is turning into rather a long litany of stuff, but I asked you what the principal issues were that you were concerned with in advising the Scottish Office.

 

293.          Mr Munro: I have mentioned archaeology. The other issue was, as I say, the quality of the new build on the site, and there were specific issues, obviously, around Queensberry House, which, as we now know, is a Category A listed historic building. Any alterations to that would normally come to Historic Scotland for final approval. Because it was a Government Department development, the situation was somewhat different. In that case, it was down, effectively, to the planning authority to clear. We would only have become involved had there been an impasse between the developer and the planning authority.

 

294.          Mr Campbell QC: Moving on a little bit, does Historic Scotland have responsibility for the Royal Parks?

 

295.          Mr Munro: Yes it does.

 

296.          Mr Campbell QC: And is Arthur’s Seat in the Queen’s Park one of those parks?

 

297.          Mr Munro: It is indeed, yes.

 

298.          Mr Campbell QC: In terms of the Holyrood development, how did the prospect of development there impact on that responsibility?

 

299.          Mr Munro: There were two, probably three, main aspects. One was roads, where the stopping-up of Holyrood Road has resulted in additional traffic coming into the park. The roads within the park had to be upgraded to accommodate that additional traffic. We are talking here about a relatively small section of the park between Horse Wynd and where the road rejoins Holyrood Road, between Dynamic Earth and The Scotsman Building. So that section of road had to be strengthened to carry the additional traffic.

 

300.          Mr Campbell QC: OK. Is that work that Historic Scotland would have had to carry out?

 

301.          Mr Munro: That was work which was carried out under our aegis, if you like, and it was funded through us.

 

302.          Mr Campbell QC: From whose budget, Mr Munro?

 

303.          Mr Munro: Our budget was augmented to cover that cost.

 

304.          Mr Campbell QC: Can you indicate the area of cost involved, the order of magnitude?

 

305.          Mr Munro: The order of magnitude. The cost of the upgrading was carried out in two phases in 2001 to 2002. The total cost was £1·419 million; just over £1·4 million.

 

306.          Mr Campbell QC: Was that work carried out by the Parliament building contractors to your instructions or separately from the Parliament building contract?

 

307.          Mr Munro: It was carried out under a memorandum of agreement between Scottish Ministers, effectively ourselves, and the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body by that stage. The project management was carried out by the parliamentary Corporate Body to specifications agreed with ourselves.

 

308.          Mr Campbell QC: And do you know which contractors were used to manage that contract?

 

309.          Mr Munro: I cannot tell you that, I’m afraid.

 

310.          Mr Campbell QC: No. What I am trying to get to, Mr Munro, is whether it is proper to regard that work as part of the site works for the new Scottish Parliament overall.

 

311.          Mr Munro: It was a necessary consequence of the Parliament building. We would not have carried out that work otherwise.

 

312.          Mr Campbell QC: Do you know if was carried out by Bovis, as construction managers, on the instructions of the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body or whether it was let as a separate contract outside the Scottish Parliament contract?

 

313.          Mr Munro: I cannot answer that question with complete confidence, but I would guess it was carried out as a separate contract.

 

314.          Mr Campbell QC: OK. Thank you.

 

315.          Could we look, please, at HS/1/027. This runs for five pages through to HS/1/031. I do not want to spend any time on this, but is this Mr Hume providing detailed comment on designs prepared by EMBT/RMJM?

 

316.          Mr Munro: Yes.

 

317.          Mr Campbell QC: And if we take the next page, please, can we see that what is being suggested here are detailed architectural treatments in relation to Queensberry House? Is that correct?

 

318.          Mr Munro: That is correct.

 

319.          Mr Campbell QC: Mr Munro, an issue arose, I think, in relation to the roofing treatment of Queensberry House. Was that at this time or later?

 

320.          Mr Munro: The issue was certainly around by this stage.

 

321.          Mr Campbell QC: Can you try to describe the issue for me?

 

322.          Mr Munro: There were two issues about the roof. One was the choice of roofing material, whether it should be pantile or slate. This had really very little bearing at all on the cost issue. It was, if you like, almost an academic issue between different points of view. John Hume argued the case for the use of pantiles; other people argued the case for use of slate.

 

323.          At a fairly early stage, I think both the Secretary of State and the architect, Enric Miralles, had been strongly attracted to red pantile for, I think, aesthetic reasons; the colour, they thought, was a warm colour and would enhance the building. So while the view which Historic Scotland eventually took was that slate was the appropriate covering in purely conservation terms, we could live with pantile on aesthetic grounds, bowing to Mr Miralles’s wishes on that one.

 

324.          Mr Campbell QC: Which is the historically authentic treatment for the roof?

 

325.          Mr Munro: My belief is that slate would be more appropriate.

 

326.          Mr Campbell QC: Was there a divergence of views about that?

 

327.          Mr Munro: I think there were honestly held differences of view amongst colleagues.

 

328.          Mr Campbell QC: OK. Was there, in addition, an issue about whether or not to remove the top storey of Queensberry House?

 

329.          Mr Munro: That is correct. There was an issue. From a fairly early stage it had been planned to take the top storey off, the top storey having been added in the early nineteenth century when the Army was using the building. The Secretary of State and the architect were attracted to the idea of returning Queensberry House as closely as possible to its original form, which we were certainly content with. Although at a later stage we did indicate that, if it made sense, to leave the top storey on for cost reasons; equally we could have lived with that.

 

11.00 am

 

330.          Mr Campbell QC:  So you could have lived with its removal or its retention?

 

331.          Mr Munro:  Yes. Taking it off gives a better overall finished product, but there was an issue over the treatment of what came to be known as the Belvedere tower.

 

332.          Mr Campbell QC:  I will come to the Belvedere tower in a minute, if I may.  I would just like to try to understand what criteria might be applied in making, what sounds on the face of it to be quite a radical decision, to take off a floor.  After all, this is a building in the highest category of listing and from your description the addition of the top floor was not exactly recent.  How are decisions made about critical issues of that kind within Historic Scotland before advice is tendered?

 

333.          Mr Munro:  Normally our Inspectorate would take a professional view based on all the information available to them.

 

334.          Mr Campbell QC:  Does Historic Scotland, in advising Ministers, take a collegiate view in controversial cases, or is it really left to the inspector to pass the advice up to Ministers?

 

335.          Mr Munro:  In the vast majority of cases the inspector would deal directly with individual cases without reference up.  We handle about 2,800 listed building consent cases a year, of which only a handful ever become controversial.  In a case like this, I would as Chief Executive, always be strongly guided by the advice of my chief professional at the time.

 

336.          Mr Campbell QC:  Nevertheless, clearly this was a case which was at the forefront of everybody’s thinking at the time.

 

337.          Mr Munro:  Indeed, yes.

 

338.          Mr Campbell QC:  Do you know whether the decision to either remove or not remove the top floor was one which was taken by you collectively, or is it advice taken sent up by Mr Hume?

 

339.          Mr Munro:  Mr Hume gave that advice, but he was certainly keeping me fully informed of the advice he was giving at that time.  Yes, it would be fair to say that I had been involved and was content with what was being recommended.

 

340.          Mr Campbell QC:  You mentioned the Belvedere tower?  For those without an architectural history pedigree such as yours, tell us what a Belvedere is, please.

 

341.          Mr Munro:  Mr Hume will be better able to answer this than I am.  I will try to explain it in layman’s language, because that is the way it had to be explained to me.  As far as we can tell a square tower which protruded through the original roof of Queensberry House which could be described as a viewing platform, if you like, probably with some sort of railing round the edge of it, to which the owner of the house could go if he so wished and enjoy panoramic views over the rooftops of Edinburgh.  We are talking about something probably built in the seventeenth century.  We had not been aware of the existence within the early nineteenth century roof, army roof, of the remains of the Belvedere tower.  Effectively the Army had taken the top of it off when they put their roof on in about 1810, and it did not come to light until further research was carried out in 1997/1998.

 

342.          By taking the top story off and lowering the roof, this presented an unforeseen problem of what to do with the remains of the seventeenth century tower.  We felt, quite strongly, that something of that antiquity should not simply be swept away, simply removed.  We argued, from the outset, for a simple treatment of the tower, we were not looking for complete reinstatement, or speculative reinstatement of the tower, but simply some physical continuation of the tower.

 

343.          Mr Campbell QC:  And what happened in the result?

 

344.          Mr Munro:  After a good deal of coming and going, the Corporate Body offered to retain the tower and do a simple reconstruction of it.

 

345.          Mr Campbell QC:  A speculative reconstruction of it?

 

346.          Mr Munro:  Well, it is a very minimalist reconstruction.  It is not an attempt to reconstruct it as it might have been, but simply to maintain it.

 

347.          Mr Campbell QC:  So the position today if I understand it correctly, taking these issues in turn, is that the building is roofed in pantile and not slate?

 

348.          Mr Munro:  That is correct.

 

349.          Mr Campbell QC:  The top floor has been retained?

 

350.          Mr Munro:  No, removed.

 

351.          Mr Campbell QC:  Removed.  But that the Belvedere has been simply reconstructed, but is in place?

 

352.          Mr Munro:  That is correct, in place.

 

353.          Mr Campbell QC:  Did any of those issues have, in your view, significant implications on cost?

 

354.          Mr Munro:  Not on the sort of scale costing thesis which this Inquiry is considering, no.   I cannot tell you what the final cost of the Belvedere Tower was, but it was estimated at one point at something in the region of £100,000 to £250,000.

 

355.          The point I made earlier about the possibility of keeping the upper storey, was when cost was becoming a bit of an issue.  We offered the thought to the then Secretary of State that by keeping the top storey, the problem of the Belvedere tower would be removed, and that cost could be avoided entirely.

 

356.          Mr Campbell QC:  Can I ask you to turn back to page HS/1/028, please:

 

357. “Ogee roofs, second hand scotch slate to be used, Mr Maxwell will advise on suitable material”

 

358.          and so forth, and then down a little is Mr Hume’s advice about the Belvedere tower.

 

359.          Mr Munro:  Yes.

 

360.          Mr Campbell QC:  Which begins:

 

361. “It should be dealt with in a simple and economical manner.”

 

362.          Mr Munro:  Yes.

 

363.          Mr Campbell QC:  I think that philosophy, if it is one, was maintained throughout the currency of the situation.  Is that right?

 

364.          Mr Munro:  Yes.

 

365.          Mr Campbell QC:  Now turning to something else, Mr Munro, first of all can I check are you quite happy to go on?

 

366.          Mr Munro:  Yes.  Could I just perhaps say, that while I am very happy to help the Inquiry with these later stages, I had not prepared for this with quite the thoroughness with which I prepared on site selection.

 

367.          Mr Campbell QC:  If you are not comfortable with the questions, just say so.

 

368.          Mr Munro:  I am comfortable.

 

369.          Mr Campbell QC:  It is either that or I bring you back, so you can choose.

 

370.          Mr Munro:  I will soldier on.

 

371.          Mr Campbell QC:  Thank you. Could you turn to page HS/1/032, please.  Do we see here a minute from yourself, your name is not at the top, but it is certainly at the bottom, and you are complaining here to Dr Gibbons about an article in the ‘Evening News’ and Senor Miralles’ wish to see Queensberry House demolished.  You say this came as a surprise.  You set out a clear policy on historic buildings and make reference to your memorandum.  Then you allow yourself a slight swipe at colleagues:

 

372. “In this age of joined-up government I would have expected there to have been some contact with Historic Scotland on such a sensitive issue.”

 

373.          How did this come about, Mr Munro?

 

374.          Mr Munro:  The minute refers to an article which appeared in the ‘Evening News’ that day which really took our breath away, to be honest. 

 

375.          Mr Campbell QC: While you are talking, can we see that at page HS/1/033?

 

376.          Mr Munro:  A report to the effect that the architect for the project was seeking the demolition of Queensberry House.  We had heard nothing of this before.  I do not know where the story came from.  I was very careful in my minute to Dr Gibbons in my final paragraph to say that I recognised that there is certainly more background to this story than appears in the article, and that, if you like, was a coded message because I am too long in the tooth to believe everything I read in the newspapers.  I was inviting John, really, to explain the background.  He phoned me back that day and assured me that the story was not true, there was no truth in the story.

 

377.          It particularly surprised me because Miralles had always been very positive about Queensberry House, and had indeed at one stage argued the case for retention of some of the other buildings on the site which we had been prepared to see demolished and which were eventually demolished.

 

378.          Mr Campbell QC:  Did you meet with Miralles ever?

 

379.          Mr Munro:  Only once. 

 

380.          Mr Campbell QC:  Were you able to form any impression of whether he had an understanding of the way in which the historical environment is treated in our planning structures and in the way Historic Scotland interfaces with the Scottish Office?

 

381.          Mr Munro:  I do not think it would have been fair or reasonable to expect him to have a detailed understanding of our legal processes.  I do not think that was his role, if you like, but it was the role of ourselves and our colleagues in the Scottish Executive to ensure that those processes were recognised and followed.

 

382.          Mr Campbell QC:  That may not be a fair question on the basis of one meeting, but nevertheless.  Did this story receive a decent and speedy burial?

 

383.          Mr Munro:  It did indeed, much to our relief.

 

384.          Mr Campbell QC:  Mr Munro, did you take part in the assembly of information when the project was handed to the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body?

 

385.          Mr Munro:  No.

 

386.          Mr Campbell QC:  Did your colleagues and staff?

 

387.          Mr Munro:  Not that I can recall.

 

388.          Mr Campbell QC:  Did you continue to liaise with the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body on the same basis as you had with the Scottish Office?

 

389.          Mr Munro:  Yes, broadly similar terms.

 

390.          Mr Campbell QC:  Through the same personnel, or not?

 

391.          Mr Munro:  Yes.  Largely through our Historic Buildings Inspectorate and also two of my colleagues who had responsibilities for the Royal Park, for the roads element.

 

392.          Mr Campbell QC:  Perhaps you can help me with document HS/1/036, can you.  This appears to be a letter to EMBT/RMJM for the attention of a Miss Ponniah, and it is signed on page 40 by Dr Robin Evetts, who, I think, at the time was one of your colleagues.

 

393.          Mr Munro:  That is correct.

 

394.          Mr Campbell QC:  What is being covered here?

 

395.          Mr Munro:  What is being covered here is our detailed comments to the — well through the project team — our comments on the application to the City of Edinburgh Council.  These are more formal comments, putting in writing the combination of a great deal of discussion which had gone on over several previous months.

 

396.          Mr Campbell QC:  For the sake of completeness, application for what?

 

397.          Mr Munro:  Application for listed building clearance in parallel with the notice of proposed development on the planning side.

 

398.          Mr Campbell QC:  So it is the Government equivalent of a private person’s application for planning permission and listed building consent, is that right?

 

399.          Mr Munro:  Yes that is correct.

 

400.          Mr Campbell QC:  This letter contains Historic Scotland’s comments made to the project architects EMBT/RMJM.

 

401.          Mr Munro:  Yes.

 

402.          Mr Campbell QC:  In January 2000?

 

403.          Mr Munro:  That is correct.

 

404.          Mr Campbell QC:  Before those applications were granted, then?

 

405.          Mr Munro:  Yes.

 

406.          Mr Campbell QC:  Perhaps you could help me with document HS/1/055, could you?  We have referred already to the Belvedere in the roof of Queensberry House.  What do we see at HS/1/055, please?

 

11.15am

 

407.          Mr Munro: This is a minute from Gregor Stark, one of our regional architects, who has, at my request, following a meeting I had had with the Secretary of State, come up with an estimate of what he believes the cost would be of reconstructing the Belvedere to the standard which we thought was appropriate. You will see that the base cost, described as the external shell cost, is £135,850. To that 16% has been added for services. That is half the rate applied for Queensberry House as a whole by the project team. The reason we chose that lower figure was that the Belvedere was not going to contain any significant servicing. It was simply a feature, if you like.

 

408.          Mr Campbell QC: And by services here you mean mechanical and electrical services?

 

409.          Mr Munro: Yes. So we did not anticipate there being much at all in the way of services, so the 16% may well have been generous. On top of that we have added an allowance of 58%, which is £91,400, which was the percentage being applied by the project team to Queensberry House as a whole. That is for professional fees, management fees, contingencies and VAT. That brought out a total estimated cost of the Belvedere at £248,000.

 

410.          Mr Campbell QC: Is 58% in line with your expectations for work on listed buildings, or is it not possible to generalise?

 

411.          Mr Munro: I think we would regard that as on the high side, but we were trying to do it on a basis which would be consistent with what was being done.

 

412.          Mr Campbell QC: Yes indeed, so the Secretary of State could consider.  Now it is implicit at least in these answers that the Secretary of State himself was taking a detailed interest in the Queensberry House issues as they were batted back and forth between civil servants. Is that fair?

 

413.          Mr Munro: That is fair. At a particular point in time he asked for a meeting, because there was a good deal of debate and controversy in the media at the time in the correspondence columns about the appropriate treatment of Queensberry House.

 

414.          Mr Campbell QC: Was it you who had meetings with him, or Mr Hume or Mr Emerson?

 

415.          Mr Munro: I attended a meeting with him in early March 2000. I do not have the precise date, I have a note of meeting dated 15 March by his then private secretary. The meeting I think took place a week or so before that.

 

416.          Mr Campbell QC: How would you describe Mr Dewar’s architectural awareness? Given that he comes to this as a politician, with a background as a lawyer.

 

417.          Mr Munro: I think he was enthused about the Holyrood site, he was very positive about the role Queensberry House could play in that site. I think he had perhaps a degree of disappointment in the physical interior of Queensberry House, which was very plain after its successive use as an army barracks and a hospital. But certainly he had a vision for it as part of the complex.

 

418.          Lord Fraser: Mr Munro, you mentioned a number of issues which came up in relation to Queensberry House, like the extra storey that had been added in the nineteenth century, and the unexpected emergence within it of the Belvedere. Do I also understand that — I think it is the south side of Queensberry House — there were two towers in place, which I think are still in place? Am I correct in understanding that the archaeological analysis of the building determined that these had been erected at a later stage and were not part of the original construction?

 

419.          Mr Munro: That may well be the case. I have not briefed myself thoroughly on the archaeological background. The house did evolve over time, and those towers may well have been later additions.

 

420.          Lord Fraser: It seems that Historic Scotland were taking a pretty flexible attitude ― they wanted its retention, in fact insisted on its retention, by moving it up from category B to category A and had some views on externals and roofs and so on, but otherwise were being fairly flexible about what went on within it. Is that right?

 

421.          Mr Munro: That is the view which we took. Our main concern was to have Queensberry House kept and decently refurbished. We were not looking for a lavish finish, we were not looking for speculative restoration of the interiors, we were looking to keep what was there and to see it reused in a sensitive, but not lavish way.

 

422.          Lord Fraser: Maybe someone else — Mr Hume — can help me with these towers. I understand when it got round to the actual construction phase of the Holyrood project, those involved in the construction had to tie these towers on to the building, because there was some concern at one time that they might collapse. You do not know?

 

423.          Mr Munro: The original survey done by Simpson & Brown in December 1997 reached the conclusion that the building was basically structurally sound. I think that has been largely borne out. You would expect a building of that vintage and with a number of alterations which it had undergone over the years that there would be some structural problems which would need to be addressed. I do not think the structural problems which were encountered at Queensberry House were out of the ordinary for a building of this type and period.

 

424.          Mr Campbell QC: Can you look at page 56, so that we have an idea of what we are talking about? I think the pitch of the roof there is running from top left to bottom right. Is that the understanding? If you are not comfortable with this, Mr Munro, we will just leave it for Mr Hume to explain to us.

 

425.          Mr Munro: He would certainly be better able to do so than myself. I am not an architectural historian.

 

426.          Mr Campbell QC: OK. Do you mind if I proceed? Document HS/1/057, Mr Monro, please. We have moved into another era now, I think you are giving advice to the First Minister on the planning and listed building consent application by the Corporate Body so far as it bears on Queensberry House. You set out the background and at paragraph 5, on the next page (HS/1/058), you deal with the costings on the restoration of the Belvedere. Would it be fair that this has been a somewhat vexed issue, this Belvedere, and has taken a long time to sort out?

 

427.          Mr Munro: Yes. That is a fair comment.

 

428.          Mr Campbell QC: In paragraph 9 at the foot of this page, you say:

 

429. “The indications are that Edinburgh will give listed building consent on 13 September. It seems most unlikely that the Council will seek the restoration of the Belvedere. This means in turn that the stump of the tower which remains will have to be lowered, but not entirely removed, to accommodate the lower roof of Queensberry House.”

 

430.          On the next page (HS/1/059):

 

431. “The existing stump of the Belvedere tower had been fully recorded. Its partial removal will be a matter for critical comment externally.”

 

432.          And you canvas the possibility of representations to UNESCO, who, as you have told me already, are responsible for the World Heritage site designation. Now, this is August 2000, Mr Munro. What in fact happened in relation to this Belvedere?

 

433.          Mr Munro: What happened was that in the course of September, a number of detailed discussions took place between ourselves, the Corporate Body, and the City of Edinburgh Council, as a result of which the Corporate Body offered to retain the Belvedere. This was seen as part of a package, if you like, not in any formal sense, but presentationally there was a lot of external comment, as I noted here about the Belvedere. There was a concern that if that particular issue was not addressed then there was a risk of an appeal beyond the UK on this issue and that the whole thing might be held up. These were formal objections from external bodies to the City of Edinburgh Council on the notice of development and the listed building clearance application. So that resolved the issue, if you like. The agreement reached in the course of September between the three parties I have mentioned, was that the Belvedere would be retained in some form and simply restored.

 

434.          Mr Campbell QC: Do we see then a subsequent exchange of memos, which allowed the permissions for that to be done at official level, rather than council member level?

 

435.          Mr Munro: That is right.

 

436.          Mr Campbell QC: UNESCO does not have an appeals procedure, does it, for what purists might regard as infringements of the World Heritage site characteristics?

 

437.          Mr Munro: No, the responsibility for upholding the World Heritage site and the buildings within it lies with the individual government, described in the parlance as the “state party”. The state party in the case of the UK is the UK Government. For all practical purposes, within Scotland it is the responsibility of Scottish Ministers to police, if you will, the World Heritage site. That falls to us. We did have an example shortly after Edinburgh old and new towns became such a site. There was an instance of a school which was being demolished where representations were made to Paris and we had to address those issues. So it was not an idle threat, we had practical experience of this happening, and this was a much more prominent and high profile site.

 

438.          Mr Campbell QC: Yes, UNESCO has a department or a branch called ICOMOS, to do with the conservation of World Heritage sites.

 

439.          Mr Munro: ICOMOS is the International Council on Monuments and Sites, and is an independent body, but it acts almost as an agent on behalf of UNESCO.

 

440.          Mr Campbell QC: What I am trying to get a feel for, Mr Munro, is whether it is actually conceivable that a tasteless alteration to a category A listed building thought to be out of character could really affect the whole World Heritage site designation.

 

441.          Mr Munro: It could certainly have put it at risk, and it could certainly have ―

 

442.          Mr Campbell QC: You would go that far, would you?

 

443.          Mr Munro: I think it most unlikely that they would have used their ultimate weapon, which is to withdraw status. That is their ultimate weapon. But I think it could have resulted in some quite embarrassing correspondence and publicity for Ministers at a time which would not have been helpful to their cause.

 

444.          Mr Campbell QC: Does this organisation maintain a policeman role in keeping an eye on World Heritage sites and making sure that its characteristics are conserved?

 

445.          Mr Munro: Yes, it does, and what we feared in this case was that some of the local conservation bodies might have made representations directly to Paris, which would then have sparked off a request from them to the UK, as the state party, to explain what was happening. We would have been called upon to explain ourselves.

 

446.          Mr Campbell QC: We have spent a little time on the Belvedere tower and the use that was to be made of Queensberry House. How long did the process of getting to a result, getting to a solution, in respect of the Belvedere tower take?

 

447.          Mr Munro: Well, it was resolved in September 2000. I am not sure when you would say the process started.

 

448.          Mr Campbell QC: I think we have Mr Hume’s detailed comments on EMBT/RMJM designs in February 1999, that is document HS/1/027, please. Your document 12, Mr Munro.

 

449.          Mr Munro: Thank you.

 

450.          Mr Campbell QC: That is the one on the screen now. If you go to the next page, 28 (HS/1/028), you will see the passage about the Belvedere.

 

451.          Mr Munro: Certainly the issue had been around for all that time. It was not the sole or necessarily the central issue throughout that time.

 

452.          Mr Campbell QC: What I would like to try and get a handle on, if I can, is to try to understand whether the resolution of differences of view about this Belvedere tower held up the listed building consent as a whole for Queensberry House.

 

453.          Mr Munro: I do not think in itself it did.  There were a lot of issues around. This was being done in parallel with the planning application equivalent.

 

11.30 am.

 

454.          Mr Campbell QC: For the main parliamentary building?

 

455.          Mr Munro: For the main parliamentary building. I do not think it was ever on the critical path as a single obstacle.

 

456.          Mr Campbell QC: OK. Thank you. Have you given any advice to the Scottish Office and subsequently to the Corporate Body in relation to the management of traffic around the Parliament buildings?

 

457.          Mr Munro: Yes, as I mentioned before, the re-routing of traffic through the Royal Park was a direct concern to us. We were represented on the working group on the Parliament with colleagues from the Scottish Office and later from the Executive and the Corporate Body with the City of Edinburgh Council.

 

458.          Mr Campbell QC: And you dealt with that issue, as you have told me, by a written agreement with SPCB. Is that right?

 

459.          Mr Munro: Yes. There was a detailed technical discussion that took place within the steering group.

 

460.          Mr Campbell QC: Thank you. Can I ask you about landscaping, please, landscaping of areas within the Royal Park curtilage but outside the curtilage of the Parliament site.  First of all, whose responsibility is the landscaping of those spaces?

 

461.          Mr Munro: The way it has now been resolved is that the landscaping will be carried out by the Corporate Body. We have transferred that bit of land on which the landscaping will go, will appear, to the Corporate Body at District Valuer valuation. This was seen to be the best way of handling it. In the initial stages, the resources for this were transferred to Historic Scotland because there was some doubt as to whether or not the Scottish Office or the Executive had the vires to spend money on land outwith the narrowly defined Parliament site. But with the transfer of the land to the Corporate Body that particular problem has been surmounted. The money for that landscaping has been transferred back, or given, to the Corporate Body, and they will manage the project. We obviously have an interest in how it ties in with the rest of the Royal Park.

 

462.          Mr Campbell QC: How it appears, in other words?

 

463.          Mr Munro: How it appears, yes.

 

464.          Mr Campbell QC: In thinking about that landscaping, I think quite significant sums of money were involved in the projections for landscaping?

 

465.          Mr Munro: Yes, that is right, and I think the total sum of money that came into our budget, if I remember right, was £10·2 million of which £1·4 million, as I mentioned earlier, was spent on the roads. The balance, I think, was the cost of the landscaping or the cost of the landscaping in so far as it came into the park.

 

466.          Mr Campbell QC: So if I understand the process, initially that was to be met by you and not by either the Scottish Office or the Corporate Body? A rethink caused the land to be transferred to the Corporate Body at valuation and an appropriate transfer of funds at the same time from your budget to theirs?

 

467.          Mr Munro: Yes, that is correct. So the money came to us, if you like, but was not required by us and then was handed on to the Corporate Body.

 

468.          Mr Campbell QC: Does that mean then that, aside from questions of appearance, you have passed on responsibility for those landscaping works once the project is finished?

 

469.          Mr Munro: That is correct, yes. I think it was also thought more appropriate for the site to be managed by one organisation, so the Corporate Body will be responsible for the future management and maintenance of the landscaping.

 

470.          Mr Campbell QC: And for the avoidance of doubt, is this land that lies alongside the road in Holyrood Park?

 

471.          Mr Munro: It is the land opposite the Parliament on the south side of Holyrood Road, what used to be known as the Royal High School playing fields, a cricket square, rugby pitch, what have you, surrounded by railings just beside Holyrood Lodge. It is that ground there.

 

472.          Mr Campbell QC: I think I am right in understanding that Historic Scotland had staff accommodation there or thereabouts. Is that correct?

 

473.          Mr Munro: That is correct. We used the former pavilion on that playing field as a muster room for the Royal Park Constabulary, so they required to be re-housed. That has now been done. We got a sum of £500,000 as the cost of replacing that, so we have built a new facility within the park.

 

474.          Lord Fraser: These are real policemen, are they, rather than Holyrood constables in their historic —

 

475.          Mr Munro: These are real Holyrood constables.  Sorry, I take your point: these are the park policemen.

 

476.          Lord Fraser: The park policemen, not the chaps with the batons —

 

477.          Mr Munro: Not the chaps with the batons.

 

478.          Lord Fraser: — who have got accommodation within the Palace itself.

 

479.          Mr Munro: That is correct, yes.

 

480.          Mr Campbell QC: And where is the new accommodation for the park policemen?

 

481.          Mr Munro: It is within the park to the east of Holyrood Palace gardens. There were previously football changing rooms on that site.

 

482.          Mr Campbell QC: And now it is a distinctive modern building, I think?

 

483.          Mr Munro: Yes. The Richard Murphy Building.

 

484.          Mr Campbell QC: Thank you, Mr Munro. I have no more questions. I am much obliged to you.

 

485.          Mr Munro: Thank you.

 

486.          Lord Fraser: Could I just ask one question? I think it may be the issue you thought more appropriate to deal with another person. The archaeology, the archaeological bit of analysis of the site: that was going to be required, you anticipated correctly, by the planning authorities?

 

487.          Mr Munro: Yes.

 

488.          Lord Fraser: But as I understand it, on behalf of the project team, Historic Scotland managed that archaeological contract?

 

489.          Mr Munro: That is correct.

 

490.          Lord Fraser: I do not think this was particularly within your direct remit, but a Mr Gordon Berkley was involved, was he?

 

491.          Mr Munro: That is correct. Gordon Berkley was one of our Principal Inspectors of Ancient Monuments.

 

492.          Lord Fraser: All I really want to know is how unusual it was for Historic Scotland to be managing the contract for a major development like this?

 

493.          Mr Munro: It is fairly unusual. We offered to do this because it was a Scottish Office, as it then was, project, in the spirit of being helpful. Clearly we had the knowledge to manage an archaeological contract. Our colleagues did not have that experience, and it seemed appropriate for us to do that.

 

494.          Lord Fraser: Yes, thank you. Just one other question: We had a look at this article in the ‘Evening News’, and you said this article about Mr Miralles wanting to demolish Queensberry House was, I think you acceded, buried. Looking at it (HS/1/031), to be fair to the ‘Evening News’, there seems to be fairly extensive quotation from Dr Gibbons in the first person.

 

495.          If we go to the left-hand column of this, Dr Gibbons is quoted fairly extensively, and it does not seem to me that this is the ‘Evening News’ taking a punt on this, but they have obviously actually interviewed Dr Gibbons, and he does make certain remarks, and I can see how they have given rise to the concern that Miralles might want to demolish it. Dr Gibbons himself says about half way down:

 

496. “He added: ‘Enric has never seen it as a particularly fine building. He was extremely anxious when he saw it and heard some of the costs that were being quoted for what we were doing.’.”

 

497.          I just want to be clear. There was something of a suggestion that this appears in the ‘Evening News’, you get more than a little alarmed by it and directly communicate with Dr Gibbons about it. He tells you there is nothing in the story whereas, in fact, if you look into the story rather more carefully it would appear that there had been quite an extended interview with Dr Gibbons. Maybe the conclusion went a little further, the headline went a little further than was justified by it, but there does seem to have been quite a considerable amount of comment by Dr Gibbons. Do you recollect what reassured you? It seems to me that when you as the Chief Executive of Historic Scotland phone up and say that if this is true, we had better be warned that Historic Scotland would be extremely alarmed about this, that Dr Gibbons backs off. I rather wonder if there was a coat being trailed here to see if a reaction would be provoked.

 

498.          Mr Munro: I really cannot speculate on that.

 

499.          Lord Fraser: Can you tell me what took place in your conversation? As I understood it, you phoned up and said “What is all this about?” or sent a minute saying “What is all this about”, and he immediately backs off.

 

500.          Mr Munro: Well, I was phoned back by Dr Gibbons that day and given assurances that this was not really in serious contemplation.

 

501.          Lord Fraser: It was not in serious contemplation. I can see why you cannot speculate whether your growl was sufficient to take it out of contemplation.

 

502.          Mr Munro: It is interesting looking at the figures quoted in the article: £3·7 million estimated for repairs and then an additional £4 million, £7·7 million, is not a million miles away from the £6·9 million which was quoted in December 1997.

 

503.          Lord Fraser: And since we are on that page, I asked you some questions which you did not seem to know about at the time. If you go to the fourth column under the word “secure” on HS/1/035, it says there:

 

504. “The project team also discovered that the two 40 ft towers added to each end were not attached to the main building.”

 

505.          That was what I was getting at. You are not aware of the detail of this?

 

506.          Mr Munro: Not really, no.

 

507.          Lord Fraser: It goes on to say that they were really just placed against the new structure, against the old, with a shallow foundation and slightly tilted. Is this right? This is where my recollection comes from: from a site visit:

 

508. “We have had to put temporary scaffolding right round the house to hold the towers in.”

 

509.          You cannot recollect anything of that deed?

 

510.          Mr Munro: Not the precise detail, no.

 

511.          Lord Fraser: But from the outset, your view as representing Historic Scotland was that Queensberry House should be an integral part of what was on site.

 

512.          Mr Munro: Certainly our view was that Queensberry House ought to be retained, and there is very clear guidance in the document I mentioned earlier on the responsibility of Government Departments for their properties.

 

513.          Lord Fraser: I suppose when, at a later stage, the advice you get is that actually, following a proper examination of Queensberry House, it should be revisited in its categorization and moved from B to A. That would, if anything, firm up your view.

 

514.          Mr Munro: Yes.

 

515.          Lord Fraser: In one of the minutes which we have looked at there is a description of a broad distinction being drawn by you of buildings to be retained and buildings on this site which you were prepared to see demolished. Apart from Queensberry House was there anything in the retained category?

 

516.          Mr Munro: No. All the other buildings we were prepared to let go for the greater good; the greater good being the retention of Queensberry House.

 

517.          Lord Fraser: Just when it was defined as a group of blue and a group of pink, whether there were in addition to Queensberry House any other buildings, but you are saying —

 

518.          Mr Munro: It was purely Queensberry House, and that was important in terms of the overall size of the site, as has been discussed already in other people’s evidence. Holyrood came to the frame because this additional space was available which had not been there before.

 

519.          Lord Fraser: Thank you very much.

 

520.          Mr Campbell QC: No, I have nothing else.

 

521.          Lord Fraser: I think we might take a five-minute break.

 

Informal break at 11.44 am.

Hearing resumed at 11.52 am.

 

522.          Mr Campbell QC:  Sir, the next witness before the Inquiry is Mr John Robert Hume, previously the Chief Inspector of Historic Buildings at Historic Scotland.

 

523.          Mr Hume, good morning, and thank you very much for coming to the Inquiry.  Can you confirm that you are John Robert Hume, for present purposes, care of Historic Scotland, and that you have been a civil servant since 1991, but before that you worked as a Principal Inspector of Historic Buildings in the predecessor to Historic Scotland?  Is that right?

 

524.          Mr Hume:  That is right, yes.

 

525.          Mr Campbell QC:  You have an academic background in chemistry and economic history, and you are the author of more than 30 books and articles in your chosen areas?

 

526.          Mr Hume:  I am.

 

527.          Mr Campbell QC:  You were the Chief Inspector of Historic Buildings at Historic Scotland in May 1997, I think?

 

528.          Mr Hume:  I was.

 

529.          Mr Campbell QC:  Just explain to us briefly the structure of the Inspectorate, would you, within Historic Scotland?

 

530.          Mr Hume:  At that time, the Inspectorate was divided into two sections, one responsible for listing and listed buildings, revision of the lists, and the other was responsible for listed building consent.

 

531.          The section responsible for listed building consent was split up by geographical area.  Most inspectors have a responsibility for a rural area and an urban area.

 

532.          Mr Campbell QC:  As the Chief Inspector, did you have responsibility for a particular area as well, or did you just supervise members of the team?

 

533.          Mr Hume:  I supervised members of the team, but I did deal with specific cases where there were particular — small p — political issues involved or where there were matters which were of more than ordinary interest.

 

534.          Mr Campbell QC:  I think we can see from the documents, some of which we have looked at already, that Mr Munro, by and large, copied you into his correspondence with Mr Gordon and others — Mr Brown as well, at the Scottish Office — as the ideas for a Scottish Parliament building began to take hold.  Is that right?

 

535.          Mr Hume:  He did.

 

536.          Mr Campbell QC:  Can we see in document HS/1/067, your document 1, Mr Hume.

 

537.          Mr Hume:  Thank you.

 

538.          Mr Campbell QC:  You are not copied into this minute, but I think you would have seen it.  We can see:

 

539. “Mr Lawrie: copy Mr Hume and Mr Emerson”

 

540.          …in the top-right hand corner.  So that is an internal circulation?

 

541.          Mr Hume:  Yes.

 

542.          Mr Campbell QC:  There is just one point about this minute; we can see it refers to 4 August, and a meeting with Councillor Geddes and Lord Provost Milligan.  Could you go to the next page (HS/1/068)?

 

543.          Mr Hume:  Yes.

 

544.          Mr Campbell QC:  In paragraph 4 there, at the top:

 

545. “Mr Geddes indicated that EDI Ltd had been invited to develop proposals for creating a Government campus, or quarter, based around St Andrew’s House and Calton Hill”.

 

546.          And he handed over a copy of EDI’s proposal.  Reading it short:

 

547. “Regent Road would be closed off and there would be an entrance to the complex which would include both St Andrew’s House and the Old Royal High School.”

 

548.          Now, did you see these proposals at that time?

 

549.          Mr Hume:  No, I did not.

 

550.          Mr Campbell QC:  You did not.  In that case, I will leave the matter.  We heard from EDI yesterday that the Old Royal High School was not ultimately part of those proposals, and I just wanted to clarify that point.

 

551.          I do not want to jump around too much, but we have been talking about the Belvedere at Queensberry House, and if I may take that out of order, Sir, since it is fresh in our minds.  Is Mr Munro broadly right when he says that it was discovered in the course of what he called “standing building archaeology” — the investigation of Queensberry House?

 

552.          Mr Hume:  Yes, he is.

 

553.          Mr Campbell QC:  What action did you take then?

 

554.          Mr Hume:  I went and had a look at it to see what the structure applicants actually consisted of.  At that time, it was in a very dark roof space and you could only look at it by torch light.  It was obviously a structure of some interest.

 

555.          Mr Campbell QC:  And what did you find?

 

556.          Mr Hume:  It was a roughly rectangular structure which protruded into the roof space of the Government vaulted roof of 1808.  It had round the perimeter the remains of a number of flues, and there was a floor below that had been the original top, which was clearly visible.

 

557.          Mr Campbell QC:  Did it appear to you to be of significance?

 

558.          Mr Hume:  It appeared to me an interesting feature of the building.

 

559.          Mr Campbell QC:  Were you able to date it?

 

560.          Mr Hume:  At that stage, it looked as though it was part of the modifications to the building conducted in the early 1680s.

 

561.          Mr Campbell QC:  And at what stage had you got to in your discussions with the Scottish Office when this discovery was made?

 

562.          Mr Hume:  At that stage, we were just looking at the building, with a view to its conversion.  There was no particular reason to discuss this matter with the Scottish Office.

 

563.          Mr Campbell QC:  Again, is Mr Munro broadly correct when he says that the issues around Queensberry House were the roof, the treatment of the roof, the treatment of the Belvedere and the treatment of the — I think — the street edge, was it?

 

564.          Mr Hume:  Yes.  These were issues, but that came some time after the discovery of the Belvedere.

 

565.          Mr Campbell QC:  How was the Belvedere matter resolved?

 

566.          Mr Hume:  The matter was resolved, as Mr Munro explained, by building up part of the structure which had been lost during the original alterations to provide a level roof wallhead and then capping that wallhead and putting in a lead flat below the level of that in order to secure a sound and stable structure.

 

567.          Mr Campbell QC:  Will there be a viewing space on the roof of Queensberry House?

 

568.          Mr Hume:  Not per se.  It would be possible to get onto the roof, but it is not arranged for that purpose.

 

569.          Mr Campbell QC:  And how long did it take to sort this out?

 

570.          Mr Hume:  As Mr Munro said, it was after I left Historic Scotland.  I would think it would be the best part of a year.

 

571.          Mr Campbell QC:  I am sorry, I should have taken that from you.  When did you cease to be Chief Inspector?

 

572.          Mr Hume:  The end of February 1999.

 

573.          Mr Campbell QC:  And I think, since February 1999, you have been retained, have you, by the project team in relation to matters to do with Queensberry House?

 

574.          Mr Hume:  I have.

 

575.          Mr Campbell QC:  But not as a representative of Historic Scotland?

 

576.          Mr Hume:  But not as a representative of Historic Scotland.

 

577.          Might I explain why the Belvedere became a controversial issue?

 

578.          Mr Campbell QC:  Yes please.

 

579.          Mr Hume:  The Belvedere became a controversial issue because of an analysis made by John Lowrey of Edinburgh University.  John Lowrey suggested that the Belvedere had been a political statement because the person for whom it was constructed was Lord Hatton, who was a senator of the College of Justice but also brother of the first Duke of Lauderdale who was effectively Viceroy of Scotland until James VII, as Duke of York, came up to Holyrood in 1679.  When James came up to Holyrood he threw out a number of people who were living in the Palace on a grace-and-favour basis, and one of these was Lord Hatton.  Lord Hatton appears to have acquired Queensberry House in 1679 to provide himself with alternative accommodation in Edinburgh close to Holyrood and close to the Supreme Court.

 

12.00

 

580.          In the circumstances it seems to me extremely unlikely that Lord Hatton would have wanted to make a political gesture, unless he was very sure of himself, by saying “yah boo snubs” to the brother of the King and the heir apparent.  Therefore, I do not see this as a likely option.  My view was, and remains, that the only way in which Lord Hatton could provide himself with a library was to build up into the roof space — a sort of attic conversion, if you like.  In addition this allowed support to be provided for a number of flues from fireplaces, which I think he added to the house, which also provided this space with a form of, if you like, central heating.  I do not believe in the possibility of a political dimension to it.

 

581.          Mr Campbell QC:  Sorry, can I just interrupt you for a second.  By political dimension, do you mean a sort of ostentation in building?

 

582.          Mr Hume: An ostentation in building to demonstrate, according to Lowrey, a connection with the Palace.  Now, the people who are in the heritage bodies who are so positively in favour of retaining the Belvedere and expressing it were people who were happy with Lowrey’s interpretation.  I hope that is helpful.

 

583.          Mr Campbell QC:  Thank you, that is very helpful.  So in the result there is a lead flat, but the tower does not protrude above the roofline?

 

584.          Mr Hume:  It protrudes slightly above the roofline.  Could you perhaps show me that diagram that you showed Mr Munro, and I will explain?

 

585.          Mr Campbell QC:  HS/1/056, please.

 

586.          Mr Hume:  The roof skew on the bottom left hand corner is the roof skew of the main range of the building, which runs east/west, and the Belvedere is situated on the Canongate side of that roof skew.  The roof skew to the right is the roof skew of the east wing of the building, so that the Belvedere sits in the angle between the south wing and the eastern end of the main range.  The reconstruction sketch that you see here shows three windows in the building which would have lit the library.  It also shows the flues.  The existence of those three windows was determined by archaeological investigation.  Everything above those windows, apart from the projected line of the flues, is speculative reconstruction.

 

587.          The restoration of the Belvedere has been completed to something slightly above the level of the three windows — more of less to the level of the projecting course shown round the structure.

 

588.          Mr Campbell QC:  The projecting stone course round the structure?

 

589.          Mr Hume:  The projecting stone course, yes.

 

590.          Mr Campbell QC:  So quite invisible from outside?

 

591.          Mr Hume:  It is fairly visible from the Canongate.  You can see the top of it as you walk down the Canongate and if you look back up the Canongate, you can see the structure.  It looks, if you like, like a top of a lift tower.  That is putting it slightly …

 

592.          Mr Campbell QC:  What has happened to the room inside?

 

593.          Mr Hume:  I do not know.  I have not seen it.

 

594.          Mr Campbell QC:  Let us go back to chronological order, Mr Hume, if we can.  I will try not to cover ground that I covered with Mr Munro.  Document HS/1/070, please, your document 2.

 

595.          This is Mr Munro copying you into his correspondence with Mr Lawrie — an internal document he told us about shortlisting and assurances that the Royal High School and St Andrew’s House were still in the frame.  Did you have personal involvement in the consideration of the proposals for St Andrew’s House?

 

596.          Mr Hume:  No, except when it came to the feasibility study.  I was content to leave that to my colleague, Mr Emerson, whose area of responsibility it was. 

 

597.          Mr Campbell QC:  When the feasibility study was done, is that a reference to the Page and Park feasibility study?

 

598.          Mr Hume:  That is a reference to the Page and Park feasibility study.

 

599.          Mr Campbell QC:  What was your involvement there?

 

600.          Mr Hume:  I had a meeting with Page and Park and Mr Emerson to discuss options for the development of the site and I suggested that instead of inserting the Chamber in the south courtyard — that is between the two south-facing wings of the building — that the Chamber might appropriately be inserted in the car park at the east end of the building, which was the site that was eventually presented as the feasibility study.

 

601.          Mr Campbell QC:  Do you remember, Mr Hume, whether what was placed in front of you in respect of Regent Road/St Andrew’s House contained information about the cost of the proposals?

 

602.          Mr Hume:  At that stage the feasibility study was to determine costs or to give an outline of the costs.  The first time I became aware of that was when the feasibility study was made available.

 

603.          Mr Campbell QC:  Were you shown costing information — specifically information prepared by Davis Langdon & Everest on the instructions of Dr Gibbons?

 

604.          Mr Hume:  Before the feasibility study?

 

605.          Mr Campbell QC:  No, at the time they were presented.

 

606.          Mr Hume:  At the time they were presented, I would see these figures, but as advice on finance was not part of our remit, I would not pay particular attention to them.

 

607.          Mr Campbell QC:  Can I just draw your attention to part of the Secretary of State’s press release of 17 October, which is your document 6?  HS/1/077, please.  If we go to page HS/1/079, which is the third page of the document, he says in the second paragraph:

 

608. “I am therefore agreeing to take forward today’s discussions on both sites to develop design specifications which will be an essential basis for robust independent costings.  I will also be commissioning traffic and environmental impacts”

 

609.          that should be impact studies perhaps —

 

610. “of accommodating a Parliament”.

 

611.          I am interested in your response to the expression “robust independent costings”, but I think that you are telling me that really that was not something that you would have been concerned with.

 

612.          Mr Hume:  It is not something I would have been concerned with.

 

613.          Lord Fraser:  Can I just go back to this meeting that you had, to which Mr Campbell has just taken you to, in August of 1997?  You were present with whom at that meeting?  It was sometime in the second week or third week of August.  Did you at that time express any views on Holyrood?

 

614.          Mr Hume:  No, because Holyrood was not being seriously considered as a site at that stage.  Holyrood emerged, as I subsequently discovered, as a long-listed site, along with some very speculative alternatives — which you probably heard about — like Edinburgh Castle, the Palace of Holyroodhouse and Donaldsons and so on.  By the time I became aware of what was going on, the choice had narrowed down to what was called the Regent Road site, and that was the Royal High School plus St Andrew’s house plus possibly some limited new build, or the Leith site. 

 

615.          Mr Campbell QC:  You do not remember saying to Dr Gibbons that it would be as well to keep Holyrood in mind?

 

616.          Mr Hume:  I did.  I do remember saying that.  The reason that I said that was not that I knew that it was available, it was just that it was a site that, when the idea of building a Scottish Parliament building, had first cropped up, I had considered personally that Holyrood would have been an appropriate site.  It is a site that I had long had my eye on as a prospective site for a prestigious building.  I had very much favoured placing the Museum of Scotland on that site, rather than next to the Royal Scottish Museum in Chambers Street.  So it was a site I was very conscious of as a potential prestigious site.  That is the only reason I mentioned it.

 

617.          Mr Campbell QC:  Thank you.  Did you know, when you were considering the long-list the extent of what was described, I think in the long-list, as the Holyrood Abbey Brewery site?

 

618.          Mr Hume:  I did not see the long-list.  I had only become aware of it subsequently.

 

619.          Mr Campbell QC:  I see.  So you would not know if it included Queensberry House or not?

 

620.          Mr Hume:  As far as I could understand from that description, it did not include Queensberry House.

 

621.          Mr Campbell QC:  Mr Hume, did you have a preference?  I am looking now at documents HS/1/071, HS/1/072 and HS/1/073.  Did you have a preference for a single-site approach at Regent Road or a dual-site approach?

 

622.          Mr Hume:  My own preference would have been for a single-site approach because otherwise it would be necessary to create a link between the two buildings.  My view as Chief Inspector was that Calton Hill is one of the iconic views of Edinburgh from quite a distance round the city centre and that to manage the design of a link between the Old Royal High School building and St Andrew’s House would have been extremely difficult in architectural terms.  It was therefore probably better to concentrate on one building or the other.  I was aware at that stage that the Old Royal High School site on its own was unlikely to offer adequate accommodation and that, therefore, the St Andrew’s House adaptation would, therefore, be my preferred option.

 

623.          Mr Campbell QC:  Even though it was a category A listed building?

 

624.          Mr Hume:  Even though it was a category A listed building.  I was not very happy with that, because it is one of the best inter-war buildings in Scotland, which is why it is listed category A.  But, if you are dealing with strategic necessity, then it is sometimes necessary to accept something less than the best.

 

625.          Mr Campbell QC:  That is an interesting comment, because clearly, it is a long way from the purist approach to the conservation of architectural history and accommodating — what did you call it — strategic pressures?

 

626.          Mr Hume:  No, not strategic pressures, strategic interests.  Could I explain about the intention of listing legislation?  The intention of the listing legislation is not to preserve, it is to manage the process of change in such a way as to respect the character and historic interest of buildings.  All the 2000-odd applications that Historic Scotland receives in a year for listed building consent involve a degree of adaptation.  It is the business of the Inspectorate to advise on the best means of achieving change with the minimum impact on important historic fabric.

 

627.          Mr Campbell QC:  Did you go to a meeting on 6 October 1997 and subsequently to a tour of St Andrew’s House with the Secretary of State on 17 October looking at the potential for a conversion of St Andrew’s House?

 

628.          Mr Hume:  I did go to the meeting with the Secretary of State.  I do not recall the meeting of 6 October very clearly, but I do remember very clearly going around the building with the Secretary of State.

 

629.          Mr Campbell QC:  Did you subsequently meet with Page and Park, who had prepared, or were in the course of preparing, a feasibility study for the Calton Hill site?

 

630.          Mr Hume:  I did.

 

631.          Mr Campbell QC:  What was the purpose of your meeting with them?

 

632.          Mr Hume:  I met with Mr Emerson, and we discussed with them how best the building could be adapted to house the Parliament with minimum impact on the historic fabric.

 

633.          Mr Campbell QC:  Were they in effect consulting you before they produced their feasibility design? 

 

634.          Mr Hume:  They were consulting us before they produced the feasibility study.  I should say that I had worked previously with Page and Park, however, on a number of projects, so I was well acquainted with them. 

 

12.15 pm

 

635.          Mr Campbell QC: Did you subsequently have any involvement with the Haymarket site, Mr Hume? 

 

636.          Mr Hume:  No.  The only involvement with the Haymarket site was to hear the presentation from RMJM architects to the Secretary of State and Mr McLeish. 

 

637.          Mr Campbell QC: Of the feasibility study or of the presentation by the developer? 

 

638.          Mr Hume:  Of the four feasibility studies. 

 

639.          Mr Campbell QC: Not the presentation by the developer? 

 

640.          Mr Hume:  No, not the presentation by the developer. 

 

641.          Mr Campbell QC: You were aware, I think, that, in relation to Leith, Forth Ports Authority, as they then were, had prepared development proposals in relation to St Andrew’s House/EDI-prepared development proposals. 

 

642.          Mr Hume:  I became aware of that subsequent to the event. 

 

643.          Mr Campbell QC: Did you ever inspect those critically from the historic building point of view? 

 

644.          Mr Hume:  I looked at them, knowing the sites, I looked at the paper presentations and the paper concepts and formed a view on that basis.   

 

645.          Mr Campbell QC:  Is that true in respect of Haymarket, Leith and Calton Hill? 

 

646.          Mr Hume:  Yes.  There is a reference to that in the documentation that I have provided. 

 

647.          Mr Campbell QC: I think it is your document 10, is it? 

 

648.          Mr Hume:  My comments followed the presentation on the four sites, which was…

 

649.          Mr Campbell QC: Let us come to Holyrood, can we, Mr Hume, please? 

 

650.          Mr Hume:  Yes. 

 

651.          Mr Campbell QC: Were you contacted in November 1997 by Mr Andrew, who was, as it were, consulting you on behalf of the Scottish Office in relation to prospects for Holyrood and Queensberry House?

 

652.          Mr Hume:  Yes. 

 

653.          Mr Campbell QC: Is HS/1/109, your document 12, a minute or at least a summary of a meeting you had with Dr Gibbons about the strategy? 

 

654.          Mr Hume:  Yes. 

 

655.          Mr Campbell QC: Can I ask you whether you took any documents to this meeting or whether the comments recorded here are simply from your own knowledge of the site and the buildings at that time on the site? 

 

656.          Mr Hume:  They are comments from my knowledge of the buildings at the time. 

 

657.          Mr Campbell QC: Had you briefed yourself about Queensberry House before you went to this meeting? 

 

658.          Mr Hume:  Yes, I had, as best I could. 

 

659.          Mr Campbell QC: Tell us please, turning to page HS/1/111, the last page, the passage in italics: 

 

660.          “Historic Scotland are anxious to preserve the street line along Canongate, Horse Wynd and Holyrood Road.  This was not discussed at the meeting…  The requirement does not necessarily mean constructing” —

 

661.          I do not know what that means —

 

662. “constructing main right of buildings to the street line.  A perimeter wall with high quality railings could meet this requirement.” 

 

663.          Were you aware of possible security implications for a public building on this site as early as this? 

 

664.          Mr Hume:  I was indeed, yes. 

 

665.          Mr Campbell QC: Did you get advice from Mr Andrew about that or from somebody in the Security branch? 

 

666.          Mr Hume:  From Mr Andrew.  I never had any contact with anyone from Security branch. 

 

667.          Mr Campbell QC: Thank you.  What is the document at HS/1/112, your document 12, please, to help us understand the layout? 

 

668.          Mr Hume:  Plans showing buildings on the site? 

 

669.          Mr Campbell QC: Well, that is why I am asking you the question, because I do not know what it is. 

 

670.          Mr Hume: It is a plan showing the buildings on the Queensberry House site.  It is better illustrated in the document that was produced for Scottish & Newcastle.  If you wish me to explain what everybody can see, I can.

 

671.          Mr Campbell QC: Yes.  I would like you to do that, if you would, please.  Perhaps you could start at the top left and just work your way round. 

 

672.          Mr Hume:  At the top left, we have Queensberry — now let me get this — the Day Hospital, which was an extension.  Then, to the right of that, we have Queensberry House with the two north-facing wings.  Then we have a conglomeration of small buildings facing the Canongate, including the Gatehouse and the Chapel.  Then we have a range of buildings on the west side of the site, of which number five is the Laundry, of about 1852, and number six the kitchens, since 1953.  Seven, which was the only other interesting building on the site, was a building called the Sir Andrew Murray Wing, which was built as part of the modification of the complex by the Board of Ordnance in about 1808.   

 

673.          Then on Holyrood Road, we have got the lodge.  Facing the barrack wing across the garden, at number 10 we have Queensberry Lodge, which was built as a home for females suffering from the problem of drunkenness.  I said prostitution in my comments at the end of the thing, but it was in fact built as a home for — a reformatory, if you like — for drunk women and later became a nursing home. 

 

674.          Mr Campbell QC:  What are numbers 12, 13 and 14 on the plan? 

 

675.          Mr Hume:  Twelve is the garden, 13 was a summer house in the garden and 14 was a tree planted by the Queen in 1965. 

 

676.          Mr Campbell QC:  Now swept away, I dare say. 

 

677.          Mr Hume:  I think we consulted the Palace and they indicated they had no objections. 

 

678.          Mr Campbell QC: Thank you.  That is helpful. 

 

679.          Lord Fraser:  Is the drunken women’s place where the MSPs have got their rooms now, is it?  Is that right? 

 

680.          Mr Hume:  That is right. 

 

681.          Mr Campbell QC: Did you have a meeting on 10 December with Dr Gibbons, Mr Bill Armstrong, Mr Paul Grice and two architects from RMJM in relation to the necessity for a rapid assessment of the Holyrood site, for which RMJM had been commissioned some days earlier? 

 

682.          Mr Hume:  I did. 

 

683.          Mr Campbell QC: What was the purpose of that meeting? 

 

684.          Mr Hume:  The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the way in which the design for the new build to be inserted into the former brewery site, and on the other side of the Queensberry House site, could be integrated with the retention of Queensberry House. 

 

685.          Mr Campbell QC: Was any shape of a new build indicated in these discussions? 

 

686.          Mr Hume:  At that stage, the purpose of this particular study was to show whether it was possible to get a building on the site.  The initial project was for a more or less square building on the brewery site and a rectangular block on the drunken women’s site. 

 

687.          Mr Campbell QC: Is this an exercise simply to assess the receiving capacity of the site for a building of a given size? 

 

688.          Mr Hume:  Yes. 

 

689.          Mr Campbell QC: Was that given size in some form of brief or specification given to RMJM? 

 

690.          Mr Hume:  I gather it was the same specification as for the other three sites. 

 

691.          Mr Campbell QC: And RMJM would have had the advantage, I think, of having done work at Haymarket already?

 

692.          Mr Hume:  That was why they were commissioned to do the work. 

 

693.          Mr Campbell QC:  Are you clear about that? 

 

694.          Mr Hume:  Yes. 

 

695.          Mr Campbell QC: Why?  How do you know that? 

 

696.          Mr Hume:  Dr Gibbons said that. 

 

697.          Lord Fraser:  We have been told that they were to report on this rapid assessment by 12 December.  It actually only received a formal contractual letter on the 11^th, but you are saying that on the 10^th you had already been engaged in a fairly extensive discussion with them and others on what might be achievable on the Holyrood site. 

 

698.          Mr Hume:  Yes. 

 

699.          Mr Campbell QC:  I think you tell us, though, that they told you, so it is double hearsay that they had been appointed on 6 December? 

 

700.          Mr Hume:  Yes. 

 

701.          Mr Campbell QC: And the presentations of these studies were on the 15^th? 

 

702.          Mr Hume:  Yes. 

 

703.          Mr Campbell QC: Earlier in the Inquiry, I think I suggested that a week had been involved.  It might be a day or two or three longer than that. 

 

704.          Mr Hume:  I would say so, yes. 

 

705.          Mr Campbell QC: You would agree with that, would you? 

 

706.          Mr Hume:  Yes. 

 

707.          Mr Campbell QC: Were you at the feasibility study presentation with the Secretary of State and Mr McLeish on the 15^th? 

 

708.          Mr Hume:  I was. 

 

709.          Mr Campbell QC: The Secretary of State said in a press release a week later in document HS/1/118:

 

710. “I am now confident that I have the information I need in order to select the final site.”

 

711.          Casting your mind back, Mr Hume, did it appear to you that the Secretary of State had made up his mind by then? 

 

712.          Mr Hume:  No, it did not. 

 

713.          Mr Campbell QC: Why do you say that? 

 

714.          Mr Hume:  The Secretary of State did not express a view at the presentations as to which sites he was still considering, but it was fairly clear to me from his body language and demeanour that he was not keen on the Leith site, partly because I do not think that the architects responsible, Benson & Forsyth, made a very favourable impression on him, more from the point of view of the design of the building that they were proposing than on the basis of the inherent merits of what they were proposing. 

 

715.          Mr Campbell QC:  Was the unfavourable impression made by the architects themselves or the product of their work? 

 

716.          Mr Hume:  A bit of both, I would say.   

 

717.          Mr Campbell QC:  All these feasibilities were presented at the same time? 

 

718.          Mr Hume:  Yes. 

 

719.          Mr Campbell QC: One after another on the same day. 

 

720.          Mr Hume:  With the Haymarket site, the feeling I got was that it was unlikely to be a serious contender, but as far as I was aware the Secretary of State was still considering both the other sites seriously at that stage. 

 

721.          Mr Campbell QC: How elaborate, when compared with the others, was the presentation made in respect of the Holyrood site? 

 

722.          Mr Hume:  It was not as detailed as the others, but it was perfectly adequate on which to form a judgement. 

 

723.          Mr Campbell QC: What was the nature of the judgement that could be formed from a presentation of four feasibility studies by architects who had, in each case, had no previous connection with the development proposals worked out by the site’s owners? 

 

724.          Mr Hume:  I think it was a very fair process.  It was exactly the sort of process that architects are very accustomed to, where you are given a site and a brief for accommodation and then you have to come up with a proposal.  I think that all the architects involved, to my mind, came up with very fair and reasonable proposals for the sites — thoughtful proposals for the sites. 

 

725.          Mr Campbell QC: I am sure that is right, but the question was this:  what is the nature of the judgement that the decision-maker could be expected to form from the presentation of that information? 

 

726.          Mr Hume:  I think you could make a very fair judgement on the basis of that, because the presentations all took account of the building requirements but also of the relationship of the building to its setting. 

 

727.          Mr Campbell QC: I am going to press you a little bit more, Mr Hume, if I may.  The nature of the judgement; these were indicative proposals in each case? 

 

728.          Mr Hume:  Yes. 

 

729.          Mr Campbell QC: Each of these architects had not had anything to do with the development proposals worked out by Forth Ports and EDI.  What do you think?  Had you been the Secretary of State, what judgement could you have formed?  Could you have formed a ranking about the suitability of sites?  Could you have formed simply a view that each site could accommodate a building of a given area?  What is the utility of this exercise? 

 

730.          Mr Hume:  I think you could form a ranking judgement.  If I had been in the Secretary of State’s position, I would have been happy to have formed a ranking judgement on the information that was before me.  All the presentations would either have demonstrated whether or not it was feasible to put a building on the site and, in fact, they did.  If one or more of them had failed to do that, the Secretary of State would have been aware that one or more of them had failed to do that. 

 

731.          Mr Campbell QC: The architects in the room will probably give a sharp intake of breath when I say this, but we have a given site area which we know, which we can take off a map.  We have a given specification requirement for a building which we know because that has been provided to us.  Is the exercise more complicated than fitting one into the other and seeing whether the building can be accommodated by the site?

 

12.30 pm

 

732.          Mr Hume: I would say that in each case the presentation gave some flavour of what could be achieved on each site.  Now, in the case of new build, I do not think this is critical.  I think you could have swapped the architects round for the new build elements.  In the case of the adaptation of St Andrew’s House, I think it was important to demonstrate that the site could both accommodate the volume of space required, but also do so in a manner which would have been acceptable, not just to Historic Scotland as representing that side of Government, but also to the generality of people looking at the impact on an important part of Edinburgh.  I think the same is true, to a lesser extent, of the Holyrood site.

 

733.          Mr Campbell QC: Are you thinking about the views from the Old Town across to St Andrew’s House in that answer?

 

734.          Mr Hume: Yes, but also not just the views looking from the Old Town across St Andrew’s House, but the views from anyone going past St Andrew’s House and standing on the Calton Hill and looking at St Andrew’s House.  It is a site that has to be seen on the ground. 

 

735.          Mr Campbell QC: It does seem to me, if I may put this to you — and I am not just doing it for the sake of controversy — but it does seem to me that the Secretary of State was being given a basket of things which were not all the same.  He was not being given four apples; he was being given some apples and some pears.  In the one hand he has got a listed building in St Andrew’s House and the conversion prospects for that.  In the case of Leith and Haymarket, new build on a clear site with very little historic building effect.  And, fourthly, he has got Holyrood, which, of course, has Queensberry House on the site but also has very distinguished neighbours and is in a very distinguished neighbourhood.  So, would you agree with me that perhaps what he was being given here were a series of different things, perhaps not entirely fairly, to help him rank them one behind the other? 

 

736.          Mr Hume: I think that what you have said is true.  I do not think that there is any unfairness about it because I think that, at the end of the day, any choice of site in an urban area has to be made taking account of things other than just the area of the site concerned and the possibility of new build or adaptation.  The quality of the environment, the effect on the environment, is an essential part of the decision-making process. 

 

737.          Mr Campbell QC: Do you contend that you were able to understand, particularly in relation to Holyrood, the effect on the environment and the neighbourhood of a prospective building of 16,000 sq metres — albeit represented in a rectangular form — as a result of what you saw at that meeting?

 

738.          Mr Hume: Yes. The things that concerned me about building on the Holyrood site from a Historic Scotland point of view were: the effect on Queensberry House; the effect on Queensberry House garden, which at that time I thought was a very important element of the site — and still do, although it has been eroded by subsequent design changes; the effect on views down the Canongate; and the effect on the Palace.  I was quite happy that, within the outline design that was put forward, that all these were adequately respected.  I think had it come to the design development stage I might have been anxious to see some fine-tuning of the effect on the Palace, but that was the only reservation I would have had. 

 

739.          Mr Campbell QC: I think the next thing that happened was that the Secretary of State instructed his officials to commission a feasibility study for Queensberry House from Simpson & Brown, and that was instructed on 17 December.

 

740.          Mr Hume: Yes. 

 

741.          Mr Campbell QC: And they reported, perhaps in world-record time, about 12 days later.  Is that right?

 

742.          Mr Hume: That is correct. 

 

743.          Mr Campbell QC: Good Christmas, no doubt.  Did you have anything to do with the choice of consultant for that study? 

 

744.          Mr Hume: I cannot now recall.  I would certainly have been perfectly happy with Simpson & Brown as consultants. 

 

745.          Mr Campbell QC: You do not remember if Dr Gibbons —

 

746.          Mr Hume: I do not remember, to be honest. 

 

747.          Mr Campbell QC: Clearly, in view of the time, the process was not tendered.

 

748.          Mr Hume: No.

 

749.          Mr Campbell QC: The commissioning of an additional study in relation to Holyrood might suggest to an observer that the Secretary of State had made up his mind by then and simply wanted confirmation of his decision.  Do you think that is likely?

 

750.          Mr Hume: I think it is open to that construction, but my feeling was that it was really a belt-and-braces approach.  It would have been unwise to have gone ahead with the development of the site if there had not been some assurances about Holyrood and about Queensberry House. 

 

751.          Mr Campbell QC: Did you recommend that to him?

 

752.          Mr Hume: Did I recommend the preparation of the study? No. 

 

753.          Mr Campbell QC: You did not?

 

754.          Mr Hume: No. 

 

755.          Mr Campbell QC: Do you know who did?

 

756.          Mr Hume: I would imagine it was Dr Gibbons.

 

757.          Mr Campbell QC: Were you aware of the feasibility studies, now all collected together, going out on a public tour, between Christmas and New Year, and, I think, into early January of 1998?

 

758.          Mr Hume: I was aware of that, yes. 

 

759.          Mr Campbell QC: What was the purpose of that?

 

760.          Mr Hume: Public information.  The process of procuring a Parliament building was continuing, and actively continuing, as so far as I could judge.

 

761.          Mr Campbell QC: You have used the expression “public information”.  Were the public’s views being sought?

 

762.          Mr Hume: I do not think that the public’s views were being sought actively, but I cannot at this stage now remember. 

 

763.          Mr Campbell QC: Was this a consultation exercise or an information exercise?

 

764.          Mr Hume: I think it was more of an information exercise than a consultation exercise. 

 

765.          Mr Campbell QC: Were you present when the Secretary of State made his announcement on 9 January?

 

766.          Mr Hume: I was, yes.

 

767.          Mr Campbell QC: Did you know before that announcement which site he was going to choose?

 

768.          Mr Hume: I had no clue. 

 

769.          Mr Campbell QC: Is that right, Mr Hume?

 

770.          Mr Hume: That is absolutely true.  To the extent that, as you probably become aware, I thought and think, that the Holyrood site is a very good site.  I was very much hoping that the Secretary of State would decide in that light, but I did not know what he was going to decide.  He did it by unveiling the name of the site — pulling a string to part curtains — and until that moment I had no clue as to which he was going to choose.  

 

771.          Mr Campbell QC: You had no idea.  Very well.  Subsequently, were you invited to join a technical panel to assist the selection panel for the designer competition? 

 

772.          Mr Hume: I was.

 

773.          Mr Campbell QC: And did you take up that offer?

 

774.          Mr Hume: I did.

 

775.          Mr Campbell QC: Were you present when the selection panel met from time to time?

 

776.          Mr Hume: The only meeting of the selection panel that I was present at was the final one to choose the successful finalist.

 

777.          Mr Campbell QC: Were you asked for your views?

 

778.          Mr Hume: Not during the process, but after the process.

 

779.          Mr Campbell QC: After the process?

 

780.          Mr Hume: After the jury had come to its conclusion the Secretary of State asked me if I was happy. 

 

781.          Mr Campbell QC: I am not here to rerun the competition, you understand, Mr Hume, so I am going to restrain myself from asking your views about the candidate sites.  Had you made a contribution to the process before that?

 

782.          Mr Hume: Yes, I had had the opportunity to comment in writing on the long list of applicants, which I did.

 

783.          Mr Campbell QC: Does that mean you saw each of their presentations?

 

784.          Mr Hume: I saw the written presentations they had produced and submitted.

 

785.          Mr Campbell QC: Not the drawings though?

 

786.          Mr Hume: The drawings, yes. The documentation they produced. 

 

787.          Mr Campbell QC: The documentation they produced. In each case?

 

788.          Mr Hume: In each case.

 

789.          Mr Campbell QC: I think there were 70 or so?

 

790.          Mr Hume: No, that was the total list of applicants.  I only saw the long list after it had been whittled down.

 

791.          Mr Campbell QC: Whittled down to?

 

792.          Mr Hume: Twelve.

 

793.          Mr Campbell QC: Were you content with the decision that the panel had reached?

 

794.          Mr Hume: I was very content. 

 

795.          Mr Campbell QC: Thank you very much.  I am much obliged to you.  I do not have any more questions. 

 

796.          Lord Fraser: I interrupted you earlier on to ask you when you had first had Holyrood in your mind, and I understand you just had it as a thought in the back of your mind because at one time you had thought the Museum of Scotland might be suitably located there.  Is that the right?

 

797.          Mr Hume: That is right.  I was aware that the Holyrood site was an underused site, even before it technically became available.  And in thinking of places to put prestigious buildings, it would have been at the top of my list in Edinburgh. 

 

798.          Lord Fraser: I am just not quite clear what the last evidence that you gave to Mr Campbell. As I understand it, the sequence of events is: the Secretary of State makes his determination that Holyrood is to be the site; then there is immediately discussion about a competition for, not a design, but a designer.  Have I got that correct?

 

799.          Mr Hume: That is correct, yes.

 

800.          Lord Fraser: You were invited, not to join the main jury, but to join a technical panel? 

 

801.          Mr Hume: Yes. 

 

802.          Lord Fraser: When they got this large number of 77 people, or whatever it was, first applying, did you see all 77 or just the last 12 when it was whittled down?

 

803.          Mr Hume: I just saw the last 12. 

 

804.          Lord Fraser: And you saw that in some detail?

 

805.          Mr Hume: I saw the presentations they produced as their submissions for that.  In addition to making their submissions, each of the long-listed applicants was interviewed, but I was not involved in the interviewing process. 

 

806.          Lord Fraser: I am not quite clear what was the role of the technical panel vis-à-vis the main jury.  Was it to say that “x” has not got a very good reputation?  I mean, would you have had a veto?

 

807.          Mr Hume: I do not think we would have had a veto.  I think, to be honest, the technical panel was, if you like, an informal extension of the jury, but not with any decision-making powers.  That was the impression I got. 

 

808.          Lord Fraser: When eventually EMBT/RMJM were selected, as I understand it, you regarded that as a very good choice.

 

809.          Mr Hume: Having sat through the four final presentations, I formed the conclusion that EMBT/RMJM had the most thoughtful approach to the development of the site; that two of the other long-listed contenders wanted to dominate the site with preconceived thinking. 

 

810.          The other, the fourth, I think could have produced, with a good deal of encouragement, a reasonably suitable design, but I did not feel that there was any great degree of creativity in that party’s approach.  I felt that EMBT/RMJM had thought about how the site related to its environs, particularly in relation to Salisbury Crags, in a way that the others had not. 

 

811.          One of the views which I had expressed earlier, communicated verbally to other people involved in the decision-making process, was that a very important part of the appeal of the Holyrood site was the immediate juxtaposition of the site to the Crags.  It is a way of indicating to parliamentarians that there is a countryside dimension to decision-making as well as an urban dimension.  I am pretty certain, although I did not communicate this directly to the Secretary of State, I think he was aware of my thinking on this matter.  The EMBT/RMJM design sketches and outlines did show that they had a very clear grasp of that.     

 

812.          Lord Fraser: Now, were these supportive thoughts that you held kept to yourself, or would these have been communicated to the panel itself?

 

813.          Mr Hume: They were communicated to the panel in the discussion afterwards — after the decisions had been reached.

 

814.          Lord Fraser: After the decision had been reached?

 

815.          Mr Hume: Yes. I was very concerned that I should not be seen to interfere in the decision-making process.

 

12.45 pm

 

816.          Lord Fraser: Ah. That is what I wanted to get to, yes. So, once they had made their selection, you tell the jury “Yes, I agree with you”?

 

817.          Mr Hume: Absolutely, yes.

 

818.          Lord Fraser: OK, but did not influence it. Well, thank you very much — it has been fascinating. Now, can you tell me a bit about Mr John Gay, please?

 

819.          Mr Hume: Well, John Gay, the author of ‘The Beggar’s Opera’, was staying as a guest of the then Duchess of Queensberry in Queensberry House when he is said to have written ‘The Beggar’s Opera’.

 

820.          Lord Fraser: And have you established that as being true or not?

 

821.          Mr Hume: There is only one reference to it, and it is in a secondary source so I cannot be absolutely unambiguous about it.

 

822.          Lord Fraser: Oh. Thank you for that fascinating detail.

 

823.          Mr Hume: Thank you.

 

824.          Lord Fraser: I think we will now adjourn.

 

825.          Mr Campbell QC: Yes, if you please. The next witness is Mr Alex Salmond, at 2.00 pm.

 

Hearing adjourned at 12.46 pm