HOLYROOD INQUIRY TRANSCRIPT

 Monday 24 November 2003 (Afternoon Session)

 

Hearing resumed at 2.05 pm.

 

1.      Mr Campbell QC: Dr Gibbons, good afternoon.  By the time we had got to 9 January, how far had you got with Historic Scotland in understanding any reservations they may have had in relation to Queensberry House — in other words in the lead-up to the decision?

 

2.      Dr Gibbons:  I think we had a working understanding with Historic Scotland of where their concerns were, and yes we had the report obviously from Simpson & Brown, and we knew the sort of ballpark costs that had been put against it.

 

3.      Mr Campbell QC:  Yes. I think, though, Simpson & Brown put those at just a shade under £7 million, did they not?

 

4.      Dr Gibbons:  Yes. At £6·9 million, I think.

 

5.      Mr Campbell QC: The estimated cost is not in that table at all but in Mr Brown’s memo of 12 January I think it is put at three point something million.

 

6.      Dr Gibbons:  Yes.

 

7.      Mr Campbell QC: Were you satisfied that Simpson & Brown’s figure was reasonably robust or did you consider it to be overstated?

 

8.      Dr Gibbons:  I personally thought it would be about right. They are a very reputable firm, and that is the sort of money one would expect to pay. We had only had a very superficial inspection; the house itself was in very bad condition. It was difficult to really get to it. The survey was done very quickly by Simpson & Brown and it was a non-disruptive survey, as far as I know, so it was done very quickly — a few days, and they could only really scratch the surface of what any problems were, but the initial costing that was included in the feasibility study included a very small part of Queensberry House; it included only for the basement area if I remember correctly.

 

9.      Mr Campbell QC:  Are you speaking there of the Simpson & Brown feasibility study?

 

10.  Dr Gibbons:  No, of the RMJM feasibility study.

 

11.  Mr Campbell QC:   Oh, RMJM. I see.  So, in the short time they had had to look at Queensberry House, are you telling me that RMJM had looked at the ground floor?

 

12.  Dr Gibbons:  The basement level; using the basement level as both entrance and connection to... Their proposal for the feasibility study was in fact a pavilion; a building standing independently of Queensberry House but connected at basement level. So that was where the earlier figure came from; the £7 million figure for Simpson & Brown was based upon looking exclusively at Queensberry House and bringing it back to a usable condition.

 

13.  Mr Campbell QC:  And can you recall for me what figure, if any, Davis Langdon & Everest [DLE] included in their advice on 12 December in relation to Queensberry House?

 

14.  Dr Gibbons:  I cannot recall, but I think it would be on the basis that it was only for the basement area.

 

15.  Lord Fraser:  What was envisaged would happen to Queensberry House if only the basement was being used?

 

16.  Dr Gibbons:  Well, there were two schools of thought. One was that the upper levels of the House, which were recognised as a saleable commodity, would actually be sold off to a third party, so they would be resold. The other option was to reuse the Queensberry House accommodation within the Government estate, and that possibly the First Minister would have been rehoused. Ministers would have been moved from St Andrews House to Queensberry House. So those were the two options.

 

17.  Lord Fraser:  There were not any security considerations about having some third party occupying —

 

18.  Dr Gibbons:  There was a consideration; there was a note that that was a consideration, but at that point in time the accommodation that Queensberry House contained was not actually needed.

 

19.  Mr Campbell QC:  I will show you it again in case I have misunderstood it. The section I am showing you here begins at SE/2/1391; it is the DLE report, if you put your finger in there. Now, I cannot see anywhere in that section any reference to Queensberry House at all.

 

20.  Dr Gibbons:  Well, I think this is probably best pursued with DLE eventually, but my understanding was that what was included in here was alterations to the basement of Queensberry House to allow it to be used.  On that feasibility study you will see that just the basement area is used, and the costs of using it are in here.

 

21.  Mr Campbell QC:   Right, I would like to show you something else now which is not scanned and this is the RMJM feasibility study. I apologise to those who cannot see this, but can you confirm that it was produced in a period of between seven and 10 days?

 

22.  Dr Gibbons:  Yes.

 

23.  Mr Campbell QC: Was there additional information in written form after the meeting of 15 December?

 

24.  Dr Gibbons:  Yes.

 

25.  Mr Campbell QC:  From RMJM?

 

26.  Dr Gibbons:  I am not sure whether it was in written form but there were drawings; there was material that was supplied to include in the public information exercise.

 

27.  Mr Campbell QC:   Right. Can I just understand what you were getting in this? Can I just begin at the beginning if you do not mind? Here on the opening page we have an extract from the White Paper, which is clearly somebody else’s work. Here on the second page we have a listing of the purpose of the study, which was taken from your own letter. Then we have a simple aerial view and we have a simple plan showing the conservation area and the World Heritage site. Sir, I do not know if you can see that from here but —

 

28.  Lord Fraser:  I have got it.

 

29.  Mr Campbell QC:   Then we have the extent of the site, which is clearly a plan, and we have some sections through the site, which are presumably available from the City of Edinburgh’s own database, are they?

 

30.  Dr Gibbons: I am sure it would be a combination. Remember that RMJM were also having the benefit of S&N’s architect’s information. I think the purpose of that drawing was to demonstrate that, in fact this is a very attractive site from the point of view of being at grade, on the slope. It meant you could get at different points around the perimeter; you could get different entrances into any —

 

31.  Mr Campbell QC:  Understood. And this might have come from Lewis & Hickey, or some of the information might have come from them.

 

32.  Dr Gibbons:  Well, Lewis & Hickey were extremely helpful. We put them in touch with RMJM and I know that there was a discussion about these things.

 

33.  Mr Campbell QC:  Now, here in section 3 we have a plan called City Grain in which we can see the various free-standing buildings which surround the site. Is that right?

 

34.  Dr Gibbons:  Yes.

 

35.  Mr Campbell QC:   Again, that is taken from an ordinary map database. Here we have a plan called “Opportunities for Development” which show Holyrood Palace there and that is I think meant to be the Parliament site.

 

36.  Dr Gibbons:  That is the pavilion for the Parliament.

 

37.  Mr Campbell QC:   The pavilion for the Parliament.  We have a sun map showing the sun orientation; we have a wind rose map showing the wind direction generally; potential for external spaces; landscaping outside the pavilion, possibly a public square. We have a security exclusion zone map, and the same thing but incorporating road closures this time; and we have the building history, which I think when we read it is simply a history of Queensberry House taken from the inventory of listed buildings. We have a condition survey. Now, is this the reference to the basement area that you have?

 

38.  Dr Gibbons:  No, that is the reference to the whole building; I think that is a report on the whole building.

 

39.  Mr Campbell QC:   Right.

 

40.  Dr Gibbons:  Yes, the external wall, so I think that is a —

 

41.  Mr Campbell QC:  A short report on the whole building?

 

42.  Dr Gibbons:  A short report on the whole building.

 

43.  Mr Campbell QC:  Is that of the sort of thoroughness that you would expect, even in that limited time?

 

44.  Dr Gibbons:  Of the basic analysis of the site, yes.

 

45.  Mr Campbell QC:  Adequate for you?

 

2.30 pm

 

46.  Dr Gibbons:  Adequate, yes; adequate in the sense that, although a lot of it was taken from readily available sources, we did not have it in one place at any one time.  What is explained elsewhere in here is the philosophy that developed from that in terms of the grain of the city and how the building was being placed, as a pavilion, in a series of pavilions which came down the Canongate.

 

47.  Mr Campbell QC:  I understand that.  The brief analysis is taken from your own brief, and then shown in graphic form. 

 

48.  Dr Gibbons:  Yes, this is the key thing to me.  This is probably, although I have not compared them directly, this very much would benefit from Haymarket.  In a sense, you can divide a brief into two parts:  there is a description of function, which is what this is; it is a series of descriptions of functions in the various areas.  That would normally be supplemented by an area of scheduled accommodation.  This is very much an attempt to show how this accommodation that we want needs to be related to each other; how the information relates. 

 

49.  This was the catch-up phase, if you like, that RMJM were able to do because they were taking a lot of this information from the analysis of the Haymarket plan. 

 

50.  Mr Campbell QC:  Can we see there that the essential analysis is the same? 

 

51.  Dr Gibbons:  Which is what I would expect.  In other words, if you put them side by side they had probably spent more than two weeks on the analysis of the accommodation, which is what we short-circuited by moving to this stage. 

 

52.  Mr Campbell QC:  This question will inevitably sound offensive, but it is not meant to be:  this is not rocket science, given the extent to which your brief was already developed, is it? 

 

53.  Dr Gibbons:  It is not rocket science, but it is a very important step in the process. 

 

54.  Mr Campbell QC:  But is this not actually a graphical representation of what you had done already? 

 

55.  Dr Gibbons:  No.  Well, it is to a degree, but I do not think we had developed these relationships in quite the same way.  We had not looked at it in the context of how you would put this on a site. 

 

56.  Mr Campbell QC:  I see.  All right. 

 

57.  Dr Gibbons:  That is the step that I think was very important. 

 

58.  Mr Campbell QC:  It is the expression “building user brief” which is troubling me.  Here you are presenting three architects with your own brief, which you have told me already needed to be as precise as possible, to get them to produce a study of the architectural feasibility of what you were planning.  Now, surely what we have here, and I appreciate that it sounds presumptuous to ask this question, is nothing more than a graphical representation of the work you had already done?  You had worked out room sizes and the relationship of one set of occupiers to another. 

 

59.  Dr Gibbons:  But I think it is put here in this way to demonstrate that this analysis has been done by the designer understanding all of this.  The missing element from all of this at the moment would be the balance area — what you actually need on a particular site to actually connect all of these things.  All of these things can be connected in different ways.  These were what we were asking to be tested.  If it was simply a question of checking the schedule of accommodation against sites, that we could have done in-house.  But to actually go through the design dimension was something which we wanted to do. 

 

60.  Mr Campbell QC:  I understand that.  Thank you.  We have got something called “circulation zoning”, which differentiates a section; public, semi-public and private zoning, which is clearly important to segregate different types of use in the building; a ventilation drawing; and then some textual explanation of the concept for the free-standing pavilion on the site. 

 

61.  Dr Gibbons:  That page is really quite important in the philosophy that was being proposed; the urban design philosophy, if you like, the importance of the building.  The grain of the city was what they were trying to explain.  The series of pavilions which were, starting at the top with the castle, if you like, coming down the Royal Mile eventually to Holyrood Palace.  This was part of a series of pavilions; that is what they saw the design as. 

 

62.  Mr Campbell QC:  This section is divided into site clearance, building concept and then building plans, in which we can read for ourselves how that philosophy is articulated: a site plan showing the demolition; a massing drawing showing the pavilion standing on its own and an upper level drawing of the same thing; different areas shown in colour, the same thing again, an additional level and then section 3. 

 

63.  Dr Gibbons:  If I could go back to that page.  This was the car parking area and the connection to Queensberry House underground.  I would have taken it in the costing; it is this and the connection that would have been costed.  The important design principle within the building is, of course, that the main Chamber sits in the centre of this pavilion and everything else is arranged around it.  That is a design approach which had not been tested in the brief; that was tested here. 

 

64.  Mr Campbell QC:  I understand that.  What you are actually getting for your money then was an indicative design concept or idea set alongside the requirements of your brief. 

 

65.  Dr Gibbons:  That is correct.  In the case of Holyrood, there clearly was only time to test one, but if you look at Haymarket the architects came forward with four options on the feasibility of putting that accommodation on the Haymarket site.  In a sense, all we needed was the assurance that the accommodation could be put on the site, which is what we got. 

 

66.  Mr Campbell QC:  The point of all these rather detailed and apparently naïve questions is that you were getting something more, were you, than simply confirmation that you could get a building of a certain size on a site of a certain size? 

 

67.  Dr Gibbons:  Yes, we were getting really the bones of a design concept applied to the site. 

 

68.  Mr Campbell QC:  And then we see the freestanding pavilion here drawn in elevation under “Section through the site.”

 

69.  Dr Gibbons:  Subsequently, which happened after 15 December, a model was made of that pavilion, and it was that model that was then put on display for public information. 

 

70.  Mr Campbell QC:  At the back, in the appendix, we have a table showing the requirements of the brief in one column and the requirements of the scheme in another.  Is that right?

 

71.  Dr Gibbons:  Yes. 

 

72.  Mr Campbell QC:  Do you consider that RMJM understood the brief that you had given them in the time available? 

 

73.  Dr Gibbons:  Yes. 

 

74.  Mr Campbell QC:  Were you satisfied with that study? 

 

75.  Dr Gibbons:  Yes. 

 

76.  Mr Campbell QC:  Do you think it gave you value for money? 

 

77.  Dr Gibbons:  Yes.  I am fairly confident it gave value for money because, as I say, we were able ultimately to check pay costs against resource costs from the point of view of the architects. 

 

78.  Mr Campbell QC:  I do not think I quite understand that answer. 

 

79.  Dr Gibbons:  It cost the architects more to do the feasibility study than the actual commission paid. 

 

80.  Mr Campbell QC:  I think the architects came back to you, did they not, in March 1998 and asked you for some more money? 

 

81.  Dr Gibbons:  Yes. 

 

82.  Mr Campbell QC:  And you paid it. 

 

83.  Dr Gibbons:  Not all of it.  No. 

 

84.  Mr Campbell QC:  Some of it. 

 

85.  Dr Gibbons:  Some of it.  Some of it that was tangible, like making a model, seemed to me to be above what was originally agreed. 

 

86.  Mr Campbell QC:  Let us move on now to look at something else if we may.  What is your first recollection of the Secretary of State’s suggestion that an architect might be chosen for the new Parliament by some form of competition? 

 

87.  Dr Gibbons:  My first recollection of this was on the visit on 30 May when architectural competitions were mentioned.  I was surprised; I do not think I displayed that surprise, but I was surprised. 

 

88.  Mr Campbell QC:  Why?

 

89.  Dr Gibbons:  Because that is what in general terms was a fairly courageous step for a Government to embark on, and I was just surprised that almost the very first things that were being said by the new Secretary of State were to think about the possibilities of an architectural competition for the Parliament building. 

 

90.  Mr Campbell QC:  Why did you regard it as courageous? 

 

91.  Dr Gibbons:  Because it obviously is not the safest of routes to procure a building.  There is a long history of difficulty with architectural competitions, which are well known and well documented.

 

92.  Mr Campbell QC:  You will have to treat me as an ignoramus in giving these answers and explain this a little more fully, if you would.  Why is it obvious that it is not the safest route to procuring a building? 

 

93.  Dr Gibbons:  Well, there are very many significant examples of projects of all sorts which have gone considerably over budget or have been delayed; but particularly with Parliament buildings.  I mean, the most recent Parliament building that had been completed in the previous years was in The Hague, where an architectural competition which started as a two- or three-year exercise turned into a 12-year exercise.  And in the process of that, I think three competitions were run before the final competition was able to reach a conclusion.  It produced an incredible amount of controversy, which was one of the words that I actually used in reminding the Secretary of State that architectural competitions could be in fact be very controversial.

 

94.  Mr Campbell QC:  I think we are getting from you a series of anecdotal reflections on architectural competitions in other places but, with respect, not much yet in the way of reasoning.  What is it about the feature of an architectural competition which can lead to this sort of uncertainty that you have portrayed? 

 

95.  Dr Gibbons:  There are many sorts of architectural competitions, but the type that I think everybody understands is where architects produce designs for buildings in competition and those designs are then, in one form or another, adjudged and a winner is chosen.  Usually, the briefing for those competitions is inadequate. Usually, after the event, the client changes his mind about what he wanted, but you have already got an architect, you have engaged an architect on a set of false assumptions about what you really want. 

 

96.  If you look at the actual examples going back to, I think, the House of Commons through to the Sydney Opera House... At the time, we also had, going on down the road, the building of the Museum of Scotland, so there were plenty of practical examples of difficulties with architectural competitions.  But, I mean, my view at the time was that these were not insuperable, but this is not the safest route to use if, at the end of the day, your prime concern is to be safe and secure. 

 

97.  Mr Campbell QC:  Had you been involved with competitions before? 

 

98.  Dr Gibbons:  On the gamekeeper side, yes.  I mean, I have entered competitions myself way, way back, and I have been a judge, an assessor, on several competitions. 

 

99.  Mr Campbell QC:  So you have been both a poacher and a gamekeeper? 

 

100.          Dr Gibbons:  Yes, yes.  I speak with feeling on both sides.  This is not to be entered into lightly. 

 

101.          Mr Campbell QC:  You spoke about the Secretary of State’s — is enthusiasm too strong a word for this, in May 1997?

 

102.          Dr Gibbons:  Yes, I think “enthusiasm” is too strong a word.  He was clearly interested, and he was trying to engage to discover more.  His reaction to my concern about controversy was to actually say that he was used to controversy and that controversy was not necessarily a bad thing in association with a re-emerging country.  I was given a little bit of a lecture that if that was a reason I was putting forward, you know —

 

103.          Mr Campbell QC:  Had you had experience, aside from being a judge, of being in charge of an architectural competition? 

 

104.          Dr Gibbons:  No. 

 

105.          Mr Campbell QC:  When did the idea of an architectural competition first become a serious runner? 

 

106.          Dr Gibbons:  I think it slowly developed; I could not put a precise time on it.  I was working with Bill Armstrong on developing the brief and in visiting some of the buildings, many of which were the product themselves of competition.  Perhaps the most famous of all, the Reichstag, was moving towards completion.  There was a dialogue around that time, which eventually led Bill and I to develop more closely the ideas of a competition.  I think, as I recall, the first time that we took the initiative to talk to others more experienced in competition organising about this was, I think, October 13 or 17 when we went on a series of visits to primarily the RIBA [Royal Institute of British Architects], the RIAS [Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland] and the International Union of Architects, who between them control architectural competitions. 

 

107.          Mr Campbell QC:  You had obviously visited the RIAS in Edinburgh; did you visit the RIBA in London for the same purpose and did you talk to competition organisers there?

 

2.30 pm

 

108.          Dr Gibbons:  Yes, Caroline Cole at the RIBA, and I talked to the chairman of the committee which produced the architectural competitions handbook, and to members of that committee about the organisation.  At that point in time we were trying to establish what forms of architectural competition there were and, most importantly should we undertake this in-house or should we undertake it through one of those bodies as an agent.

 

109.          Mr Campbell QC:  Could you look with me please at SE/3/003?  I can finally see you going into print, Dr Gibbons.

 

110.          Dr Gibbons:  It is the first time that the policy decisions in this area fell into my bailliwick, if you like.

 

111.          Mr Campbell QC:  This is 6 January and you are anticipating a decision clearly by paragraph 2.  I dare say you had an idea, did you, by then, that Holyrood was the favoured candidate?

 

112.          Dr Gibbons:  Yes.

 

113.          Mr Campbell QC:  It looks as thought the Secretary of State has spoken in a press release of an architectural competition in July of the previous year.  Had you done any work between July and that date to try and advise him of what kind of competition might be most suitable?

 

114.          Dr Gibbons:  I think both Bill and I just became better informed as time went on.  I think we both saw at the end of the line that we would be put in the position of explaining what the various options were.  So I think particularly again when we went on visits, particularly to Dresden but to Berlin as well, we were trying to investigate what had been the impact of the procurement origins on the building, and some very interesting things came out of that.

 

115.          Mr Campbell QC:  What was your understanding, as it evolved, of any relationship between an architectural competition and the type of European or Treasury procurement rules which we discussed at the very opening of your evidence?

 

116.          Dr Gibbons:  There was the difficulty of fit between the two, in the way that the EC rules are operated in this country. 

 

117.          Mr Campbell QC:  In what respect was there a difficulty of fit?

 

118.          Dr Gibbons:  Well, particularly with the discussions with the RIBA.  Some of the difficulties of running the designer competition within the EC framework was not going to be easy.  The RIBA could not point us to say, “You cannot do this”, but on the other hand it was an untested area, so there was an element of risk which we would be entering into in going down the designer route, particularly with the two envelope system, as you know, at the end of the route.  There was a view that that was one of the areas that perhaps was not within EC rules.  So that was what I meant by… On the other hand the International Union of Architects were completely comfortable with what we did, and what we did at Holyrood is almost common practice in the United States.

 

119.          Mr Campbell QC:  So you had a variety of information, or you received or gathered up a variety of information, with a view to doing what — giving the Secretary of State advice?

 

120.          Dr Gibbons:  Yes.

 

121.          Mr Campbell QC:  And that is what…

 

122.          Dr Gibbons:  That is really what that is, yes.  In detail we teased out the comparative costs of using one of the agencies to run the competition or doing it in-house.  We tried to explore the difficulties that that might bring about.  We talked to several private sector organisations that ran competitions through the RIBA and we had considerable encouragement from the RIBA that we possessed in-house the expertise to allow us to run the competition.

 

123.          Mr Campbell QC:  What type of expertise was thought to be necessary?

 

124.          Dr Gibbons:  We had done a lot of preparatory work on the brief, which is perhaps the most crucial thing, and that we were able to demonstrate.  There was a reasonably concise expression of what we wanted on the user side.  We had a professional group of people to provide the support to that.  I think they recognised the importance of the building as well in symbolic terms if you like; this was a building which fitted very well with a design competition.

 

125.          Mr Campbell QC:  Fitted very well with the idea of a competition?

 

126.          Dr Gibbons:  Yes.  They were not surprised that this was being looked at.

 

127.          Mr Campbell QC:  Could we look at page SE/3/004 ?  You tell the Secretary of State there that there are really two types of competition; competitions for a design and competitions for a designer.  Can you articulate for us briefly how you saw the differences between the two?

 

128.          Dr Gibbons:  The competition for a design, the end product of all those who compete, is a finished building design.  An entrant would take a brief and produce a building design and at the end of that stage of the process, you would then be left with however many competitors have entered your competition and you would be able to physically compare those proposals.  At one level that is a very good option for a client to have in front of him — a range of different solutions to his building problems.  The downside of that is that it consumes quite a lot of time because you have got to allow people to design, and in the process of allowing them that period of time to design, very often the brief develops; and of course it does assume that the brief is completely frozen before you start that process.  So that is the design competition.

 

129.          Mr Campbell QC:  Presumably much more expensive for the participants than it…

 

130.          Dr Gibbons:  Well, another problem was that we had been receiving over the periods considerable complaints from the profession about abortive work in competitions, usually seeking some sort of Government support for the notion that designers/architects should be reimbursed for those costs.  One understands that, but the costs for the individual practice associated with a design competition can be horrendous, and we were certainly at the centre.  This information, feeding back with another hat on; some of the costs involved in competitions were just extraordinary, and it was just felt this was not a good way of using a resource.

 

131.          The other problem with the competition was time.  It took a long time to develop these competitions, and at the end of the day these were still outline proposals.  So the costing dimension to these was still not really as robust as one would have liked.  But a long history of difficulties that ultimately would arise following the final selection, that was the other aspect of the design competition. 

 

132.          Mr Campbell QC:  Let us come to look at that in a minute.

 

133.          Dr Gibbons:  So that is design.

 

134.          Mr Campbell QC:  You talk about here

 

135.“competitions to find a design and competitions to find a designer”

 

136.          and then you say,

 

137.  “These competitions are more accurately known as competitive selection procedures”

 

138.          and you do a brief analysis of each. 

 

139.          I would like to look at paragraph 8, if I may.  You note that:

 

140.  “Both open and limited competitions are subject to EC rules”. 

 

141.          By that do you mean EC procurement rules?

 

142.          Dr Gibbons:  Yes. 

 

143.          Mr Campbell QC:  And you note that as:

 

144.“a requirement to establish a design jury which is independent of the client, that is to say the client representatives should not command a majority.”. 

 

145.          Is that actually what it says or does it stipulate that the clients’ representatives should be either of an equal number to other representatives or in a minority?

 

146.          Dr Gibbons:  I cannot remember precisely but my impression was that they should be in a minority.

 

147.          Mr Campbell QC:  And that:

 

148.“a third of the jurors should possess qualifications equivalent to those required of the candidates.”.

 

149.          You ended up with six jurors, did you not, so you only required two with architectural qualifications?  In fact you had three.

 

150.          Dr Gibbons:  Three, yes.  Could I go back, Mr Campbell, just to explain a bit more about the designer competition?

 

151.          Mr Campbell QC:  Thank you, if you would.

 

152.          Dr Gibbons:  It is important because we saw significant benefits from the designer competition, which were essentially of speed.  It was a process which was much faster to put in place and it would bring about finding a designer and a design team much sooner in the process, which would have enabled that designer or design team to participate in the final development.

 

153.          Mr Campbell QC:  The obverse or the counterpoint to that, though, is if you are going to go for speed you may not be giving your prospective designers as clear or as fixed a brief as you would using the other type of competition.

 

154.          Dr Gibbons:  No, but, in a sense, in the other type of competition you are looking at the product, whereas in the designer competition you are essentially looking at the teams that are coming forward and testing those teams so that the product at the end of our designer competition was a series of indicative designs, conceptual designs, not finalised designs for buildings.

 

155.          Mr Campbell QC:  Let me just take you on then from the product of a designer competition to looking at how you crystallise a brief.  Are you envisaging that given the product of such a competition, it would then be important to move forward with that designer to crystallise the brief before starting to let contracts?

 

156.          Dr Gibbons:  Yes. 

 

157.          Mr Campbell QC:  How important is that?

 

158.          Dr Gibbons:  It is quite important.  It has happened on the Holyrood project in the sense that, once the architect was in place, then the dialogue developed directly with the client and amendments made to the brief.  That was informed by the design team and by the architect.

 

159.          Mr Campbell QC:  So we move forward into a process of working with the chosen designer on the brief, but I think that construction started and contracts were let before that brief came into its final form.

 

160.          Dr Gibbons:  Yes. 

 

161.          Mr Campbell QC:  Part of the reason for that, I suggest, is that the Parliament was not elected until 1999, so you were not able to know, were you, until then what it thought it needed?

 

162.          Dr Gibbons:  I think we were proceeding on the basis…  We knew, we were anticipating, as I say.  The parallel to this is school-building, really, where you are trying to arrive at a solution which is reasonably flexible in many ways but where you do not actually know the precise end user, and if you look at the way the Parliament changes very much like a school:  when you have a change of staff element in the school, then how you use that school changes and your requirements change.  There has been already differences in approach to using the accommodation between the first Scottish Parliament and the second Scottish Parliament. 

 

163.          Mr Campbell QC:  But with respect, is there not a world of difference between a school, which is something within, I suggest, very many architects’ ordinary experience, and a Parliament — you may never see a design of a Parliament again in your life — a unique commission?

 

164.          Dr Gibbons:  Absolutely, but I would have thought that it was important then that the architect who was on board was immersing himself in the background which we had managed to collect together, but we were not expecting every architect to come in with the same amount of information.  It is a two way process.  I thought we would have been able — well, we were able — to bring the architect up to speed very quickly, but then benefit from his creative contribution to the process.

 

165.          Mr Campbell QC:  We are getting ahead of ourselves here slightly, but I would just like to continue with this discussion for a minute.  With Holyrood is it not a legitimate criticism that the cart, in effect, overtook the horse after you had selected EMBT/RMJM that the brief was not crystallised before contracts started to be let?

 

166.          Dr Gibbons:  The brief was crystallised.  There was never any doubt in the build-up to the election of the Parliament that the Parliament, under the direction of the Secretary of State, was going to proceed.  We proceeded on the basis of that.

 

167.          Mr Campbell QC:  That is not what I meant though, Dr Gibbons.  It was my fault I am sure, but what I meant was that the ideas and the detail in the brief were not sufficiently firm and not sufficiently crystallised before the contracts began to be let, the works packages began to be let, and so costs necessarily overtook budget because people were building without a clear idea of the final shape of what they were building.

 

168.          Dr Gibbons: Well, I think when they were building they had a clear idea of what they were building. The changes that took place were really still changes that were influencing the design that was taking place, not the actual building; so there was an opportunity to incorporate these changes before they were, as it were, set in stone or concrete. So that was the process that was taking place.

 

169.          Mr Campbell QC: So when changes came along, if there were changes to aspects of the building which were already, to use your phrase, set in stone or set in concrete, that necessarily cost money, both in redesign and reconstruction.

 

170.          Dr Gibbons: Yes, yes.

 

171.          Mr Campbell QC: And in a nutshell, is that what has happened?

 

2.45 pm

 

172.          Dr Gibbons: There is not a nutshell here, I am afraid. I think there are many different aspects; that is one important aspect, yes.

 

173.          Mr Campbell QC: OK.

 

174.          Well, as I said, I am getting ahead of myself. Let us go back to think about this competition, if we may, for a minute or two.

 

175.          Could you turn to paragraph 10, here, on SE/3/005 ? Thank you. You say in opening that paragraph,

 

176.“Given the very tight timescale with which we are committed to delivering the new Parliament Building”.

 

177.          What was the timescale?

 

178.          Dr Gibbons: It was completion within the life of the first elected Parliament, which was — I cannot remember.

 

179.          Mr Campbell QC: The date of this memo is January 1998.

 

180.          Dr Gibbons: Yes. So it was, I think, September 2001, something like that.

 

181.          Mr Campbell QC: Two and a half — two and three quarter years.

 

182.          Dr Gibbons: Yes. Yes. Working backwards from estimated timescales to actually construct the building, we were talking of  21-24 months.

 

183.          Mr Campbell QC: Yes.

 

184.          Let us look at paragraph 11.

 

185.“Under EC rules it will be necessary to advertise for suitable architects, but the shortlisting procedure is under the complete control of the client”.

 

186.          Now, we have learned from paragraph 9 on the previous page about the composition of the jury. How does the shortlisting procedure remain under the complete control of the client if the competition is being run under EC rules?

 

187.          Dr Gibbons: Sorry, I do not quite follow.

 

188.          Mr Campbell QC: Just take your time and read it. Tell me when you are ready.

 

189.          Dr Gibbons: Well, perhaps it is a loose use of words, but it was that there was control that the client was able to exercise over the process.  Even though we were within EC rules, we nevertheless felt it important that the client had control of the process. That, in a way, was lessons learned from other competitions where the client appeared to lose control of the process.

 

190.          Mr Campbell QC: I am bound to ask you what the point is of having a jury of eminent members of the great and the good in the world of architecture if the aspiration really is to keep the process under the client’s control.

 

191.          Dr Gibbons: Well, I think at the time the Secretary of State was really… This was a requirement that he was not prepared to hand over the selection of the architect for such an important building to any of these other agencies that were offering to do it, and through that the process of a more open jury system… These are RIBA recommendations in a way, and what was being recommended was apparently not an abnormal process. When a client wanted to have a degree of control over the process, whether they were public or private sector, it was quite acceptable that a client would want some degree of control. Now, the client, in this sense… ultimately we are talking of the Secretary of State wanting control over the process.

 

192.          Mr Campbell QC: You talked about these other organisations. Did you mean the architectural organisations?

 

193.          Dr Gibbons: Yes, sorry — the RIBA and the UIA [Union Internationale des Architectes] particularly. This was not abnormal. It appeared to me, from the reaction that he got from all these organisations, that we were not putting forward something that was all that abnormal. It was the Scottish taxpayer’s money; it was the Secretary of State, Ministers, us, acting on behalf of the Scottish taxpayer, wanting a degree of control over the architect that was selected.

 

194.          Mr Campbell QC: I think my question was a fair one, nonetheless. What is the point of having a selection panel composed of persons other than representatives of the client; if, at the end of the day, part of the object of the exercise is, as you say, to keep the process under the complete control of the client?

 

195.          Dr Gibbons: I think it is just a balance between the two extremes, if you like; between what one would have if —

 

196.          Mr Campbell QC: Is it a true balance, Dr Gibbons?

 

197.          Dr Gibbons: Yes, I think it is a reasonable balance.

 

198.          Mr Campbell QC: I mean, would it not be clearer if the non-client members of a selection panel were told in advance “we want you here for the benefit of your aesthetic sense or your advice, but you are not actually here to choose an architect — your artistic sensibilities”.

 

199.          Dr Gibbons: Yes, that is an approach, but it is not one we chose to do. I think we were guarding against the dangers that the juror selected for his architectural aesthetic abilities might decide to go into other areas in a sort of open-jury situation. He might bring other issues to the table.

 

200.          Mr Campbell QC: But why should he not do that, if he is selected as a member of a designer selection panel?

 

201.          Dr Gibbons: I think the net result of doing that might not be acceptable —

 

202.          Mr Campbell QC: — To the client?

 

203.          Dr Gibbons:  To the client, yes.

 

204.          Mr Campbell QC: So it was important, was it then, to the Secretary of State, to keep a hold on the process?

 

205.          Dr Gibbons: Yes. I think the Secretary of State took heed of the warnings that were given about the risks involved with competitions, but on the other hand he wanted to demonstrate — still — a degree of control, in the sense of wanting to safeguard what we were identifying as potential problems with competitions to protect the value-for-money aspects of them all.

 

206.          Mr Campbell QC: Is the appointment of a panel with non-client representatives anything more than cosmetic in those circumstances?

 

207.          Dr Gibbons: Well, I do not think so. I think it depends who they are.

 

208.          Mr Campbell QC: What do you get from a Joan O’Connor or a Kirsty Wark or an Andy MacMillan, who are not client representatives, who are invited onto a panel, the result of which, the deliberations of which, the Secretary of State wants to keep under his control?

 

209.          Dr Gibbons: Well, the Secretary of State played a hand in the selection of the jury.

 

210.          Mr Campbell QC: Quite so, but what was he getting from the outsiders?

 

211.          Dr Gibbons: Well, he was getting a degree of independence, a degree of objective opinion. In the case of the two architects, he was getting very different… In the case of one architect, he was getting, if you like, an academic and creative body of opinion, and of the other architect, a very extensive knowledge of project management procedures, and between the two of them, a very very extensive knowledge of architectural practice in the world. None of the lay members could provide that. So I mean the panel idea is very much to get a balance between all of these separate issues and then to allow a debate to take place where everybody’s views can be expressed and evaluated.

 

212.          Mr Campbell QC: But ultimately what is the point of a debate if it is a cosmetic exercise, when the client knows from the beginning, and he has — again, I do not mean to be impertinent in the least — but he has got two of his men on the selection panel.  What is the client getting from the appointment of outside representatives?

 

213.          Dr Gibbons: Well, he is getting a broader range of opinion; a much broader range of opinion. That is certainly what happened, because the two internal jurors were under no instruction or pressure to do anything but to make their own contributions to the process. But, in making those contributions, we could have those contributions tested by four other people coming from different perspectives and we in turn could test the assumptions that they were making. So, what actually resulted was just a lively discussion of all of these issues.

 

214.          Mr Campbell QC: So the outsiders were appointed then for their ability to engage in lively and informed discussion to help the Secretary of State make a decision on his own?

 

215.          Dr Gibbons: They were appointed to bring different forms of expertise and experience to the table; to contribute to the debate; to help make the decision. It was a unanimous decision. Nobody actually felt that at the end of the day we were making a recommendation to the Secretary of State.

 

216.          Mr Campbell QC: I am interested in that. You flagged up that it was a unanimous decision, and the papers certainly show that in relation to the judging of the shortlisted entries. Nevertheless, it does appear, or at least on one view it may appear, that the outsiders were appointed simply to give intellectual respectability to a process which was actually always going to be under the control of the Secretary of State.

 

217.          Dr Gibbons: No. I think the process was under the control of the Secretary of State, but the outcome was never intended to be under the control of the Secretary of State.

 

218.          Mr Campbell QC: Are they different things? Really?

 

219.          Dr Gibbons: Well, yes, yes. If the outcome is a badly run competition, then that would have reflected very badly on the Secretary of State. I believe we had a reasonably well organised competition that produced a result, but there is no way that result could have been predicted and there is certainly no way it could have been manipulated in the process, because of the diverse views that were being expressed.

 

220.          Mr Campbell QC: But it need not be a badly run competition because it has outsiders on it.

 

221.          Dr Gibbons: Not at all, no, no.

 

222.          Mr Campbell QC: Is it a badly run competition if it does not reach the result that the Secretary of State wants it to reach?

 

223.          Dr Gibbons: No. It is a badly run competition if there is a subsequent controversy over the selection or complaints about the process. That would be, in my view, what we were trying to guard against.

 

224.          Mr Campbell QC:  All right.

 

225.          Dr Gibbons: Or public disagreement between the jurors; public disagreement between independent jurors, and perhaps the Secretary of State’s representatives, which has happened in Britain in the last six years.

 

226.          Mr Campbell QC: Can I take you on in this document and staying with this theme for the moment?

 

227.          Dr Gibbons: Yes.

 

228.          Mr Campbell QC: We looked at paragraph 11, and you can see it there at the top of the page: you talk about the shortlisting procedure being under the complete control of the client.

 

229.“Normally, a selection panel is appointed by the client who will sift applications (against pre-determined criteria).”

 

230.          Now, in the case of the Holyrood Parliament, did the panel sift the applications?

 

231.          Dr Gibbons: Yes.

 

232.          Mr Campbell QC: And is that true of what we have come to call PQQs, the pre-qualifying questionnaires?

 

233.          Dr Gibbons: Each of the panel members had access to all of the 70 PQQs or whatever they are called, yes.  They examined them in two ways; one, against their own criteria, but also against the criteria which we supplied.

 

234.          Mr Campbell QC: Which were in the form of a tick-list, were they, or a list of criteria?

 

235.          Dr Gibbons: Yes, a list, yes, which closely relates to the advert; the OJEC [Official Journal of the European Communities]advert.

 

236.          Mr Campbell QC: Right. We will come to look at that advert in a minute.

 

237.          So that people can see what we are talking about, can we look at CB/1/137? Thank you.

 

238.          Is this a copy of a pre-qualification questionnaire for the provision of design services for a new Parliament building for Scotland?

 

239.          Dr Gibbons: Yes.

 

240.          Mr Campbell QC: And is it in fact a copy of the one filled in and completed by Enric Miralles y Moya, ultimately the winning entry?

 

241.          Dr Gibbons: Yes, that is correct.

 

242.          Mr Campbell QC: Now, just explain to Lord Fraser please, would you, what the purpose is of the PQQ?

 

243.          Dr Gibbons: The advert which promoted the competition required entrants to register; to lodge their names. Then, this pro forma would be provided, which really is their first opportunity to set out their relative skills and services they can offer. So they set out their track record, their design philosophy. Because it is a pro forma, that information can then be taken on a comparative basis.

 

244.          In practice, it prevents being deluged with individual practice prospectuses, which you are not easily able to compare.

 

245.          Mr Campbell QC:  Because they are glossy and try to sell the practice?

 

246.          Dr Gibbons:  Well they try to, yes.

 

247.          Mr Campbell QC:  So this is meant to be an objective presentation of basic facts about the practice?

 

248.          Dr Gibbons:  Basic facts about the practice, yes.

 

3.00 pm

 

249.          Mr Campbell QC:  But not, I think, any form of indicative design of what is required by the advertisement.

 

250.          Dr Gibbons:  Sorry, there is an opportunity within the form to actually set out a design philosophy, but it is a very short piece which explains what the approach would be to the design of a Parliament.  There is a similar piece which explains the background to the practice.

 

251.          Mr Campbell QC:  OK.  Could you look at CB/1/141 please, so we can see that?  And at the foot of the page, can we see what is described as a brief description of the nature of your firm’s business?  And this is Señor Miralles or his staff setting out his stall, very briefly, about the nature of his practice.  Is that right?

 

252.          Dr Gibbons:  That is right, yes.

 

253.          Mr Campbell QC:  Good.  Now turn to SE/3/018, would you?  Is this a copy of the OJEC notice, as we have come to call it?

 

254.          Dr Gibbons:  Yes.

 

255.          Mr Campbell QC:  And what is the significance of a notice of this kind in the context of tendering for professional services?

 

256.          Dr Gibbons:  Well this is the route by which registering services for the Commission would be made.

 

257.          Mr Campbell QC: Is this a mandatory requirement for the securing of professional services over a certain value for, for example, the procurement of public buildings?

 

258.          Dr Gibbons:  That is correct.

 

259.          Mr Campbell QC:  Thank you.  Could we look at this?  Can we see that the authority is the Secretary of State; that the service required are architectural design services for a new Parliament building comprising those aspects?  There is a brief word about the site, quantity surveyors to be appointed separately, and the project is anticipated to cost in the region of £50 million, excluding VAT.

 

260.          Now, I did ask you deliberately before lunch some questions about further restatement of the £50 million figure.  Do we have an example of one such restatement here, even although DLE had said before Christmas 1997 that the likely out-turn would be greater than that figure?

 

261.          Dr Gibbons:  The figure that was presented was a range by DLE of £50 million to £55 million, and my recollection is that the £50 million was deliberately chosen as being the lower figure, and setting, if you like, the target.

 

262.          Mr Campbell QC:  Were you aware of sensitivity about the figure of £50 million being shown to be exceeded because of simple political sensitivity?

 

263.          Dr Gibbons:  No, I was not aware at that stage, as I recall.  As I say, I think the Secretary of State was aware that there was a higher figure put in the range originally of £55 million, and a conscious decision was taken to use the £50 million as the base figure.  So that was the degree of comfort, if you like, but the intention was that the Project Team would contain or drive the cost towards the £50 million.

 

264.          At this level, in terms of a building — £50 million for a building of 17,000 square metres — there is a whole range of ways in which those two can fit together, and there is a great degree of control that you can exercise to make sure the two match.

 

265.          Mr Campbell QC:  Nevertheless, the figure is here.

 

266.          Dr Gibbons:  Yes.

 

267.          Mr Campbell QC:  Are you responsible for it being here, or was this framed in your office, this advertisement?

 

268.          Dr Gibbons:  I think it was framed in my office, but the responsibility for preparing the OJEC advert was being carried out in Directorate of Administrative Services, under a team led by Bill Armstrong. So I had nothing to do with the preparation of this advert, but I recognise all of these figures.  These were agreed figures that went into it.  I saw them before they went into it.

 

269.          Mr Campbell QC:  OK.  Can we see over the page, SE/3/019 please, that

 

270.“Pre-qualification questionnaires will be evaluated and a list drawn up for interviews.  Thereafter, shortlist of firms… will be invited to tender.”?

 

271.          Dr Gibbons:  Yes.

 

272.          Mr Campbell QC:  Now, by tender are we to understand “make a submission”, or are we to understand tender in terms of fees?

 

273.          Dr Gibbons:  Not tender simply in terms of fees, but make a submission.

 

274.          Mr Campbell QC:  Right.  What does paragraph 7 mean, please?

 

275.          Dr Gibbons:  I honestly do not know.  I did not fill this form in.  I would imagine it is just simply heading off any proposals to put forward submissions which had variations within those submissions.  In other words to avoid submissions which were qualified.  I think you would be best to ask Mr Armstrong that.

 

276.          Mr Campbell QC:  OK.  Could it relate to the possibility of a change of identity of a tenderer between one stage and another?

 

277.          Dr Gibbons:  It might do; I really do not know.

 

278.          Mr Campbell QC:  Could we turn down to paragraph 13?  Can we see there at the second bullet point that

 

279.“… professional indemnity insurance for each participating service of at least £5 million for each and every claim”

 

280.          is a requirement for a submission of a PQQ?

 

281.          Dr Gibbons:  Yes.  That was the UK Treasury requirement at that time for that size of project.

 

282.          Mr Campbell QC:  A UK Treasury requirement for that size of project — being a project in the £50 million area?

 

283.          Dr Gibbons:  Yes.

 

284.          Mr Campbell QC:  I would find that, would I, in Treasury guidelines on procurement?

 

285.          Dr Gibbons:  Yes.

 

286.          Mr Campbell QC:  And can we look then at paragraph 14 on the next page (SE/3/020)? I think we got to paragraph 14, Dr Gibbons:

 

287.“Award criteria other than price:  Economically most advantageous tender, relevant experience, design ability”.

 

288.          What do those mean?

 

289.          Dr Gibbons:  Well, I think this was the description that we were advised to use by the RIBA to allow the process that we eventually used, where the design proposal was evaluated as the most important aspect, if you like.  So it has to be economically most advantageous, but design was being expressed as an important requirement at that stage.  But the discussion about this was all done between Bill Armstrong and the RIBA and representatives of the EC.  I am not quite sure whom he talked to, but that issue developed from that debate.  So this format was designed to deal with the competition that had been designed as well.  That is the way it is correlated, but I am afraid I did not have anything to do with the detail, so I am not sure.

 

290.          Mr Campbell QC:  Do you know if what we are looking at in paragraph 14 is a series of criteria of equal importance or a hierarchy of criteria of descending importance?

 

291.          Dr Gibbons:  I would have thought that the design ability was the most important criteria related to the format of the competition.

 

292.          Mr Campbell QC:  So what is the answer to my question?

 

293.          Dr Gibbons:  Could you —

 

294.          Mr Campbell QC:  What I put to you was that we are looking at three criteria here.  I am going to ask you in a minute what you think “economically most advantageous” means, but we are looking at three criteria.  Are we to look at them here as criteria of equal importance or are we to look at them as some sort of descending order?

 

295.          Dr Gibbons:  I would have thought as of equal importance, but that is my view.  That is the first time I have considered that sentence, but the only other observation was that in fact design ability seems to me to be the unique criterion amongst those criteria.

 

296.          Lord Fraser:  When it talks about the period duration of contract — a time limit for completion of the services being four years approximately — when would that four years begin to run?

 

297.          Dr Gibbons:  It would run from the first… well, it is open to —

 

298.          Lord Fraser:  You have got a major expression of interest by 2 March 1998.  It struck me that would probably be the earliest possible date it could be assumed to be, but was probably a later date.  If you had been selected as the designer, you ought to be anticipating you might be employed for up to four years.

 

299.          Dr Gibbons:  Yes.

 

300.          Lord Fraser:  That takes us into the middle of 2002.

 

301.          Dr Gibbons:  Yes.

 

302.          Mr Campbell QC:  I wonder if it would be convenient just to take a moment now, sir, to give Dr Gibbons a comfort break.  It is getting very warm.

 

303.          Lord Fraser:  Yes, we will take five minutes’ break.

 

Informal break at 3.11 pm.

 

Hearing resumed at 3.17 pm

 

304.          Mr Campbell QC: We were dealing with the OJEC notice. Are you quite OK to go on?

 

305.          Dr Gibbons: Fine. I am quite happy to talk about the OJEC notice. The OJEC notice was prepared by the Parliament team, not by me. But I would be more than happy to talk about it.

 

306.          Mr Campbell QC: Subject to that qualification, which I completely understand.

 

307.          Dr Gibbons: Absolutely, yes.

 

308.          Mr Campbell QC: Could you look at SE/3/019, which is the document Lord Fraser was looking at with you a minute or two ago? I asked you about paragraph 7; he asked you about paragraph 8. If we go to the foot of the page, we can see here:

 

309.“Potential service providers must provide 3 copies of the pre-qualification questionnaire. The questionnaire will include a requirement for the following:

relevant skills, efficiency and experience.”

 

310.          Now, can we just look at these one at a time. What is required there, as you understood it?

 

311.          Dr Gibbons: There is a section in the PQQ which spelt that out in slightly more detail, is my memory. But we required to have a statement about the mix of skills in the office, the experience of the skills in the office, and obviously the design team. So one would be looking for demonstrations of multi-skills, maybe, the abilities, the experience, the performance of their senior designers as well — all, one would hope, with examples of what that had produced. Efficiency: we are looking more for operational efficiency, quality-assurance schemes; to what extent offices monitor or subscribe to national quality-assurance schemes; some external demonstration of assessment of the efficiency of the office; and experience, mainly to be provided by a display of what they had achieved in terms of buildings. But those, I think, in the PQQ are translated into more specific questions.

 

3.15 pm

 

312.          Mr Campbell QC: And you can confirm, can you, that when the PQQs come to be assessed, it is solely on the content of the PQQs themselves, reflecting these criteria, that a judgement is made to shortlist?

 

313.          Dr Gibbons: Yes. The first judgement that was really made was to accept or not. One of the PQQs was clearly not acceptable. That was the first stage of sifting, if you like.

 

314.          Mr Campbell QC: I am sorry, I do not think I understand that.

 

315.          Dr Gibbons: Well, in the context of what is said here — qualifications — one of the submissions was thought not to pass the threshold of the description of what was being required.

 

316.          Mr Campbell QC: Do you mean one out of all 70?

 

317.          Dr Gibbons: Yes.

 

318.          Mr Campbell QC: Well, that was not going to be my question, because I do not want to ask you questions about unsuccessful candidates, because presumably they entered this competition on a confidential basis. But I am interested in the process, Dr Gibbons. My question was: is it correct that the PQQs, the instrument by which the shortlisting process is carried out, the contents of the PQQ are the material on which the person makes the judgement? Do I keep them in and shortlist them or exclude them?

 

319.          Dr Gibbons: At the first stage, that is absolutely right, yes.

 

320.          Mr Campbell QC: Are there are two stages to the PQQ?

 

321.          Dr Gibbons: No, at the first stage of the designer competition. At the first stage, all 70 PQQs were considered.

 

322.          Mr Campbell QC: And reduced to 17 and then 12?

 

323.          Dr Gibbons: That is right.

 

324.          Mr Campbell QC: And then five? Is that right?

 

325.          Dr Gibbons: That is correct, yes.

 

326.          Mr Campbell QC: Yes, well, I understand number 1. Number 2 is the professional indemnity insurance limit, and that is set at:

 

327.“5,000,000 UKL for each and every claim”.

 

328.          And you say that is in accordance with Treasury guidelines.

 

329.          Dr Gibbons: At the time, yes. It has increased further since then.

 

330.          Mr Campbell QC: Number 3 is the:

 

331.“numbers of suitably qualified staff specialising in the services to which the contract relates, including principals and their professional qualifications”.

 

332.          And then number 4, I think, is, essentially, another way of asking for recent experience in terms of commissions. And then number 5 is in there, presumably because of Queensberry House. Is that right?

 

333.          Dr Gibbons: Yes.

 

334.          Mr Campbell QC: If we go to SE/3/020, I am afraid that whoever drafted this is guilty of lapsing into jargon here. But I need you to try and explain it to me:

 

335.“the availability of ongoing interface with the client”.

 

336.          What does that mean?

 

337.          Dr Gibbons: I think it means: are you going to be here? How are you going to deal with the client? Aware that there would be many foreign firms that were applying, we wanted to know how they intended to work away from home I assume.

 

338.          Mr Campbell QC: And number 6 you have dealt with already — external standards.

 

339.          Dr Gibbons: Yes.

 

340.          Mr Campbell QC: I have asked you about 14. Now, can we look at 15?

 

341.“A pre-qualification questionnaire will be issued to applicants on receipt of a written request…Award procedure chosen, restricted competitive tender.”

 

342.          Again, it is perhaps a little short of a verb, or at least the verb in the right tense. Can I understand that to mean that the process which is being employed here is that of the “restricted competitive tender” process?

 

343.          Dr Gibbons: Yes.

 

344.          Mr Campbell QC: What are we to understand by that?

 

345.          Dr Gibbons: Well, that is one of the award procedures that was laid out. I think there are three that are open that are used for architectural competitions. There is an open award, there is restricted and there is negotiated. The restricted competitive tender — the designer competition, or the type of designer competition that we had, where we had advertised, fell into that category.

 

346.          Mr Campbell QC: Tell me, did you and your colleagues rely on any written set of rules in setting up and establishing the plan for this competition?

 

347.          Dr Gibbons: Yes. The principal document was the interdepartmental Architectural Competitions Handbook.

 

348.          Mr Campbell QC: Is that what we see at RI/1/001?

 

349.          Dr Gibbons: Yes.

 

350.          Mr Campbell QC: If we turn to RI/1/002, can we see the foreword by the then Secretaries of State for National Heritage and the Environment, Mrs Bottomley and Mr John Selwyn Gummer?

 

351.          Dr Gibbons: Yes.

 

352.          Mr Campbell QC: If we turn down a bit, please. Thank you very much. There are their signatures. And it is this booklet, without spending too much time on it just now, quite a substantial compendium of rules dealing with architectural competitions of one kind or another.

 

353.          Dr Gibbons: Yes.

 

354.          Mr Campbell QC: Did you make a conscious choice to follow this, or did you follow it but varied the rules as you devised your own competition?

 

355.          Dr Gibbons: No, we followed it with help from, or with an influence from, the RIBA. We went through it with the RIBA representative, the people with experience of architectural competitions. By and large, this was the model that we followed. It was informed by the discussion that we also had with the RIAS. Certainly I had a discussion with the Union Internationale des Architectes in Paris, and Bill had had discussions with the EC about some of the greyer areas in here that we might be pushing to the limits on.

 

356.          Mr Campbell QC: Let us look at RI/1/009. Do you see the paragraph beginning “This is the classic… ”

 

357.          Dr Gibbons: Yes.

 

358.          Mr Campbell QC: That is the open, single-stage design competition; that is not what you had in mind.

 

359.          Dr Gibbons: Absolutely not, no.

 

360.          Mr Campbell QC: On RI/1/010, the open, two stage competition is exactly what it suggests — a competition divided into two parts.

 

361.“Candidates work to a brief but submit their first-round entries only as concept sketches or in a limited number of drawings. From these the assessors will select a shortlist of candidates to proceed to the second stage. The shortlist of candidates will be offered a fee to develop their ideas into detailed designs.”

 

362.          Is that what you chose, Dr Gibbons?

 

363.          Dr Gibbons: Well, if you move on to the competitive interview, which is in the latter part, page 29, of the publication, this essentially was the route that we chose.

 

364.          Mr Campbell QC: What page are you on?

 

365.          Dr Gibbons: 29.

 

366.          Mr Campbell QC: That is RI/1/022.

 

367.          Dr Gibbons: Yes, so the terminology seemed to be interchangeable amongst the experts that we talked to; that occasionally it is called a “selective competitive interview” or a “designer competition”. That is what we meant.

 

368.          Mr Campbell QC: I have got rather ahead of myself, but since we are here, we will stay here for the moment. Could we look at how it works?

 

369.“Guided by an architectural adviser, the client will draw up a list of suitable architects.”

 

370.          Who was the Architectural Adviser, Dr Gibbons?

 

371.          Dr Gibbons: Well, I was the Architectural Adviser, but again many different options are contained within it for how to proceed. We were talking about advertising. In other words we are not drawing up a list; we are advertising the opportunity to submit an application to enter. If you go to the end of that sentence, it says:

 

372.“or he may issue invitations on the recommendation of his adviser”.

 

373.          That was the recommendation that we made; that invitations should be issued through the OJEC process.

 

374.          Mr Campbell QC: Now, with respect, I do not think that can be right, can it, because this paragraph is looking at drawing up a list of suitable architects?

 

375.“He may advertise and make a selection from those who respond… or he may issue invitations on the recommendation of his adviser.”

 

376.          Now, here, you did not issue invitations, did you, to selected candidates?

 

377.          Dr Gibbons:  No we did not.

 

378.          Mr Campbell QC:  You issued an open invitation to provide a PQQ?

 

379.          Dr Gibbons:  Yes, that is correct.

 

3.30 pm

 

380.          Mr Campbell QC:  I asked you a question about the expert adviser or the architectural adviser, if we look earlier in the document, page RI/1/014:

 

381.“In all but the simplest design competitions, the assessors will require expert technical and sometimes financial advice.  In some instances the necessary expertise may come from within the jury itself, or it may be supplied from within the promoter’s company or organisation.  In major competitions it will be necessary to employ consultants.  Examples include engineers, financial assessors, quantity surveyors and planning consultants.  It is not the role of the expert advisers to express their preferences but merely to report objectively on the issues put to them so that the assessors can make their own informed judgements.”

 

382.          Do you foresee any possibility of conflict of interest between your answer, given a moment or two ago that you were to be the expert adviser and your position on the panel as a member of the jury?

 

383.          Dr Gibbons:  No, because I think that relates to the classic design competition.  The issue of the establishment of a technical panel is much more important in the context of a design competition where designs are being submitted and where designs have to be evaluated in quite a lot of detail.  That was exactly the process that was used at the Museum of Scotland where a technical panel produces lengthy reports on detailed aspects of the design.

 

384.          Mr Campbell QC:  Yet it was mooted here that there would be a technical panel to be headed by Mr Armstrong.

 

385.          Dr Gibbons:  Yes, it was mooted, but it was thought unnecessary given the range of advisers that were provided.  So, in other words the Technical Panel — Mr Armstrong was the Secretary of the panel and John Hume attended as an assessor on behalf of Historic Scotland — we were not evaluating designs, never.  We were always evaluating concepts, if you like, where technical expertise, a separate technical assessment would, in any case, have been very difficult to do ahead of the game.

 

386.          Mr Campbell QC:  If you knew you were having a competition to select a designer and that all you would get from them would be a conceptual framework for what you needed, what was the point of identifying Mr Armstrong as a person to sit on a technical panel?

 

387.          Dr Gibbons:  He was the Technical Secretary to the panel.  The point was that it was felt that the Administrative Secretary may not have understood all of the debate, or there may be technical dimensions to it which he would have had Mr Armstrong on hand to explain or expand.  That was the intention behind it.

 

388.          Mr Campbell QC:  Did Mr Armstrong, after the long lists of PQQs were considered, tabulate the results of that consideration?

 

389.          Dr Gibbons:  Yes. When I was absent from the office, he produced a systematic method of evaluating the entries and marked it.  When I came back to the office we discussed that, and we did not take it any further.  I tested it by trying to use the model myself and talked to other panel members about it, about whether we could have used it in the form that it was, but I felt it was too complex and there was agreement from other panel members that it was too complex to use in those circumstances.

 

390.          Mr Campbell QC:  You were absent from the office between January and April 1998?

 

391.          Dr Gibbons:  Not quite, a little bit shorter than that, but it is roughly that.

 

392.          Mr Campbell QC:  Whilst you were away who was in charge of the moving forward of this process?

 

393.          Dr Gibbons:  Mr Armstrong would have primarily been.  My input to the process was very much as the Professional Adviser.  There was still the administration divisions of accommodation that were heavily involved and Robert Gordon, through the Steering Group, always kept a monitoring eye on all of that, so the assessment that was made by Mr Armstrong was not incorporated any further into the assessment of the submissions.

 

394.          Mr Campbell QC:  Why was that?

 

395.          Dr Gibbons:  Because, as I have said, I thought it was the Project Manager’s assessment, not any member of the panel’s assessment.  I had tried to use the process that he put forward and I had marked it and I reached dramatically different results from Mr Armstrong because it is actually quite a complex process.

 

396.          Mr Campbell QC:  I am sure it is, but I am trying to get to the point of it so I can understand it.

 

397.          Dr Gibbons:  This was not assessing the architect; this was assessing all members of the design team.

 

398.          Mr Campbell QC:  Yes.  On the basis of the PQQ?

 

399.          Dr Gibbons:  Yes, on the basis of the PQQ.

 

400.          Mr Campbell QC:  So what Mr Armstrong did was he took the criteria — tell me if I am wrong about this — took the criteria and the OJEC notice, he took the criteria as set out in the PQQ, he then took the responses of all 70 applicants and he scored them according to their responses, by placing a numerical score against their responses.

 

401.          Dr Gibbons:  Yes, that is correct.

 

402.          Mr Campbell QC:  Was that not a useful thing for the panel as it was ultimately selected?

 

403.          Dr Gibbons:  Well, the way I tested it was to do exactly the same exercise which produced dramatically different results because the way you weight different offices would give you a different result.  The example I was going to use was that most of the consultants, other than the lead architect — the lead architect was always very clearly shown on the PQQ, you always knew who the lead architect was — but when you come to the supporting consultants, it was very difficult to understand from the PQQs.  For example, Ove Arup have offices all over the world, Büro Happold have offices all over the world, and we ran into difficulty with this later on when both of those practices decided to alter the arrangement they had in place to support the lead architect.

 

404.          Mr Campbell QC:  Yes.

 

405.          Dr Gibbons:  It was not easy to evaluate, to score these consultants out of a hundred, I found, and I thought I had a reasonable knowledge of the abilities of the consultants.  But faced with evaluating each of them out of a hundred and then accumulating those marks into a set of marks for the whole submission, not only did it produce a dramatically different result to Mr Armstrong, but it produced a cumulative result which I was unhappy about, and certainly unhappy about the prospect of every member of the panel doing that, based on the fact that I had, I thought, pretty good knowledge of the construction industry field.

 

406.          Mr Campbell QC:  If you had had each member of the panel evaluate each of the 70 PQQs, then you would not have remained in control of the process, would you?

 

407.          Dr Gibbons:  Well, each member of the panel did examine each of the PQQs. What they did not do, and what we did not ask them to do — well I only asked, from memory, I think it would be Professor MacMillan that I actually tried to see whether he could use the proforma.  I did not ask them to do it because I just thought it would be beyond them.

 

408.          Mr Campbell QC:  Forgive me if I just stay with this for a moment so that I am sure that I understand it correctly.  The purpose of the PQQ is to extract from would-be candidates a set of objective data by which they can either be placed on a shorter list or rejected?

 

409.          Dr Gibbons:  Yes.

 

410.          Mr Campbell QC:  Is it not therefore necessary, absolutely necessary, that some form of objective standard be applied to that selection process?

 

411.          Dr Gibbons:  Yes, but I think it is more important that it is applied in its generality rather than through what seemed to me to be a somewhat arbitrary marking system.

 

412.          Mr Campbell QC:  What do you mean by objective in its generality; surely that is a contradiction in terms?

 

413.          Dr Gibbons:  No, I think if you said to two members of the panel, “Is practice A better then practice B?” that is something they would very quickly be able to explain.  But if you said to them, “How many marks out of a hundred were you going to give practice A or practice B?” there was not enough information in the PQQ to do that.

 

414.          Mr Campbell QC:  So what was the point of the PQQ if it did not let you make an objective judgement?

 

415.          Dr Gibbons:  Well, the point was it let you make the judgement; you could make a judgement about the relativity.

 

416.          Mr Campbell QC:  But you could be wrong; you could be seriously wrong.

 

417.          Dr Gibbons:  Yes, but there was more likelihood you would not be wrong if you were not hiding behind, sort of, false statistics, in a way.  To me it was almost like the confidence one gets from using a computer.  One needs to get to the root of it and not to be able to hide behind say something is 271.

 

418.          Mr Campbell QC:  But Dr Gibbons, if I am a lay member of this panel and am there simply because I have expressed an aesthetic sense or have an artistic sense or have an interest in architecture, how on earth am I going to make a judgement about a practice from Thessalonica and a practice from Barcelona and a practice from Stranraer?  On the basis of what is in the form?

 

419.          Dr Gibbons:  Well you have got what is in the form; and you have got what was submitted in terms of visual evidence; and you have got your colleagues, your panel members sitting alongside you who can respond to any enquiries that you might have.  I mean —

 

420.          Mr Campbell QC:  Forgive me for interrupting, but is it not then absolutely necessary that if this process is to have any meaning at all the panel must sit round together and try to reach a consensus view about each and every one of the 70 PQQs?

 

421.          Dr Gibbons:  Well, what they actually did was —

 

422.          Mr Campbell QC:  Please answer my question.  Is that not absolutely necessary?

 

423.          Dr Gibbons:  No.

 

424.          Mr Campbell QC:  Why not?

 

425.          Dr Gibbons:  Well, because what they did was, realising that there was a great deal of effort involved in looking at every one of the 70 submissions — and all of them independently expressing the view that that is what they wanted to do. This issue was debated at length with Mr Armstrong, so he was aware that this was being put to panel members.  When I discussed it with the panel members, they were all quite clear that they were not prepared to have somebody else’s sifting of the full field of 70.  They were prepared to devote the time to do that, but the only way they could devote the time to do that was to be slightly more economical with the time.  So in essence I took the 70 PQQs to the people, to the panel members, and in a variety of ways all of them saw the 70 PQQs I cannot remember precisely how we came to the view, but in the dialogue that then took place between me and each panel member.

 

426.          Mr Campbell QC:  But you were a panel member?

 

427.          Dr Gibbons:  Yes.

 

428.          Mr Campbell QC:  Do you not sense any contradiction between your position as a panel member and your position as a guide of individual panel members selecting from a long list of 70 PQQs?

 

429.          Dr Gibbons:  I certainly did not see that contradiction at the time, no.

 

430.          Mr Campbell QC:  Do you now see, looking back on it?

 

431.          Dr Gibbons:  No, I do not think so.  I did not find any difficulty in detaching myself.  I mean my separate assessment; I mean in my observation of the process, each panel member made separate assessment of the 70.

 

432.          Mr Campbell QC:  But they were all guided by you.

 

433.          Dr Gibbons:  They were not guided by me. I took them submissions.  We did not discuss their choices.

 

434.          Mr Campbell QC:  But Dr Gibbons, you are going to each panel member as a member of the panel yourself and the Chief Architect of the client with 70 PQQs and you are synthesising these PQQs until you get them down to a manageable number.  Is it not inescapable that there will be a perception that you have influenced that process?

 

435.          Dr Gibbons:  Well, there may be a perception, but that certainly was not the case.  I was purely mechanically taking 70 PQQs or arranging for panel members to come into the building and look at 70 PQQs. Quite independently of that, quite separate from that, I was in my own time preparing my own view of those 70.

 

436.          Mr Campbell QC:  Where is the expression of your own view of the 70?

 

437.          Dr Gibbons:  It is in some form or another; it is on the file.  It is not on…  Each of the panel members was provided at the outset with a file which contains most of the material that you have got, but it does not contain the marking sheets of the individual panel members.  Now, some of them still have those individual marking sheets.

 

438.          Mr Campbell QC:  In looking at the process I am not seeking to re-run the competition here, please do not misunderstand me — but in looking at the process and the objectivity which was applied to the process, the Scottish Executive’s files do not have within them the marking sheets or marking records or notes of the process by which a long list was reduced to a shortlist.

 

439.          Dr Gibbons:  They do not have the marking of the individual members of the panels.

 

440.          Mr Campbell QC:  No.

 

441.          Dr Gibbons:  The process was, from memory, there was a coming together when there were in the order of 24 or 25 submissions that were clearly of the first order.

 

442.          Mr Campbell QC:  Whose assessment of the 70 PQQs prevailed to bring that list from 70 down to 17?

 

3.45 pm

 

443.          Dr Gibbons:  There was a discussion about each of the submissions.  Each of the submissions was opened up, examined —

 

444.          Mr Campbell QC: What sort of a discussion?

 

445.          Dr Gibbons: A discussion between the panel members about whether or not… I mean, we were at 24 and were trying to reduce it.  We reduced it to 17 by a round table discussion.

 

446.          Mr Campbell QC: Before that then, when you referred to discussion, did you mean between yourself and individual panel members?

 

447.          Dr Gibbons: No. On 23 March, I think, there was a panel meeting when this process then took place. There was a two-part process. There was a discussion in the morning between panel members. There was a discussion in the afternoon which the Secretary of State chaired. The discussion in the morning looked at panel members’ preferences, if you like, their views as to which were the best submissions. Putting that information together in the morning produced a list of 17 that all panel members agreed that at that point in time they would want each of those 17 to go forward to the next round.

 

448.          Mr Campbell QC: By that time, Dr Gibbons, had you had individual meetings with each of the panel members?

 

449.          Dr Gibbons: Yes.

 

450.          Mr Campbell QC: In respect of the 70 PPQs?

 

451.          Dr Gibbons: In respect of the 70.  When you say meetings, I had made available to the panel members the 70. In other words, I recall taking some to some places, and they coming to see, I mean I did not sit down ―

 

452.          Mr Campbell QC: It does not much matter whether you took them or whether they came to Victoria Quay. Did you have a dialogue with the individual panel members?

 

453.          Dr Gibbons: Not about their marking.

 

454.          Mr Campbell QC: About the assessment of the PQQs?

 

455.          Dr Gibbons: Not about their marking, no.

 

456.          Mr Campbell QC: At all?

 

457.          Dr Gibbons: Not that I can recall.  I mean, there may have been discussions. There were certainly discussions about what I was proposing to use as a shortened version of an assessment criteria which again the reaction from all the panel members was resistance.

 

458.          Mr Campbell QC: Was what?

 

459.          Dr Gibbons: Resistance. They were resisting the idea of moving to a more formal, quantitative marking system.

 

460.          Mr Campbell QC: There are two things there in that answer, a more shortened method, you said, and a more quantitative marking system. Let us just be clear what we are talking about.

 

461.          Dr Gibbons: What was being expressed was a method that they could understand and would be content for themselves to apply. In other words, it had to be easily understood, not a lengthy document which they would have difficulty with. I thought the criteria that was produced for them to use was relatively simple and relatively straightforward. It was a system that had been used within the Scottish Office which had not produced any difficulties, so I did not think that was beyond their grasp, if you like. But the other point―

 

462.          Mr Campbell QC: Forgive me, before you go on. Did you then devise the scoring method or the assessment ― we must not say scoring, must we ― the assessment method which the individual panel members were to use to assess the PQQs?

 

463.          Dr Gibbons: Yes. Well, I would not take complete responsibility but yes, it was designed within the office.

 

464.          Mr Campbell QC: And what was the form of it? Was it a table?

 

465.          Dr Gibbons: It is as an attachment at the back of my statement.

 

466.          Mr Campbell QC: What am I looking at, Dr Gibbons?

 

467.          Dr Gibbons: It is attachment A to my statement, and it is the second two pages of attachment A, which were available for the first meeting of the panel, which lists the criteria I suggest we use in compiling the ranking. “Following the interviews next week”, so I sent this―

 

468.          Mr Campbell QC: Just bear with me a moment, please. Could you look at JO/1/087? This is not a document that was contained within the Scottish Executive files, but I have obtained it from elsewhere. Can you account for its absence from the Scottish Executive files?

 

469.          Dr Gibbons: No, I mean it was absent from the files when the Auditor General did his initial investigation. I then provided it to the files, so it should be on the files.

 

470.          Mr Campbell QC: Can you confirm that this form is of your making?

 

471.          Dr Gibbons: This form is of my making. It is heavily based upon marking criteria that were in use in the Scottish Office at the time, and I think it is the same format as was used in the quantity surveyor appointment.

 

472.          Mr Campbell QC: Right. So it is something of a standard form?

 

473.          Dr Gibbons: It is something of a standard form which was designed with a view to a selection panel having to quickly come to a comprehensive understanding of the criteria that were being used and also how to translate that into ― quantify is what I meant earlier.  How do you quantify that in terms of a mark which can then be used in a system to add up scores and develop ―

 

474.          Mr Campbell QC: So, just to be clear, this was a tool for panel members to score the PQQs?

 

475.          Dr Gibbons: That was its intention, yes.

 

476.          Mr Campbell QC: Was it used?

 

477.          Dr Gibbons: No, not as far as I know.

 

478.          Mr Campbell QC: Forgive me, is this not the same type of tool that Mr Armstrong did use when he produced an overall matrix of all the candidates and scored them?

 

479.          Dr Gibbons: It is a much simpler tool than that tool.

 

480.          Mr Campbell QC: Yes. Is it the same type of tool is what I asked you.

 

481.          Dr Gibbons: It is the same type, it is just simpler.

 

482.          Mr Campbell QC: Can we see here set against these bullet points the same sort of criteria, although a little more detailed as we find in the OJEC notice?

 

483.          Dr Gibbons: Yes.

 

484.          Mr Campbell QC: Right. Further down the page we can see how you would want to mark out of 100, a little like a school report, “outstandingly good” 90 plus, down to “a team with serious failings” at 40 plus, and room at the bottom for a mark and the name of the panel member. So you were looking, Dr Gibbons, were you, for your panel members, including yourself, I dare say, to score each of the 70 PQQs using this tool?

 

485.          Dr Gibbons: That would have been ideal, yes.

 

486.          Mr Campbell QC: You were looking for the panel members to use one of these for each PQQ.

 

487.          Dr Gibbons: Yes.

 

488.          Mr Campbell QC: And what then would you have done with them, once you had them completed?

 

489.          Dr Gibbons: Well, we would have produced a summary of the marking results, and that would have been used as a method of arriving at a shortlist and that would have provided the audit trail that you referred to.

 

490.          Mr Campbell QC: And that is what Mr Armstrong did although using a slightly different method, more complicated, you say.

 

491.          Dr Gibbons: Yes. Well, it was more complicated. I think I would argue that because he and I had very similar experience and very similar knowledge, and yet we produced such radically different results that this would be more reliable.

 

492.          Mr Campbell QC: Why would yours be more reliable?

 

493.          Dr Gibbons: Because I think it is simpler and easier to understand, particularly for lay people coming to it for the first time.

 

494.          Mr Campbell QC: Well, we will ask him about that in due course. The next series of questions are to do with the PQQ itself, so you can please indicate to me when you would like to rise. I think there is about 15 or 20 minutes of questions about this document.

 

495.          Lord Fraser: I do not think we are going to finish Dr Gibbons evidence this afternoon. Mr Bearhop has a suggestion for you when we might conclude, that it might be as soon as tomorrow afternoon, if that is possible.  We will discuss it with you privately and find a time that suits you.

 

496.          Mr Campbell QC: Could I just ask one to two questions about this sequence without going on to something new? I showed you what you called appendix A attached to your statement, which you told me was designed to help the panel members score the PQQs. Is that right? Could you look at the second page of it, sorry the third page, JO/1/088. Now, that looks to me like an interview assessment summary; that is what it is called at least. There appear to be 12 boxes presumably for 12 candidates and the names of the panel down the left hand side. This is attached to the document I showed you earlier. Might it be that this document with the criteria on it was really for interviewing purposes, not for marking the PQQs?

 

497.          Dr Gibbons: No, what I said at the outset was that the first two pages were used at the first interview. That is the criteria were used and the marking criteria. They were not used, but the proposal was that they were used.

 

498.          Mr Campbell QC: If we look at JO/1/087, let us just try and get this clear in our heads, shall we? That is marked “interview number”, and the name of the design team, so it is clearly designed for use during an interview, is it not?

 

499.          Dr Gibbons: Yes.

 

500.          Mr Campbell QC: Not for marking a PQQ?

 

501.          Dr Gibbons: No.

 

502.          Mr Campbell QC: Could you be mistaken about that earlier answer?

 

503.          Dr Gibbons: Well, I could be mistaken. The only difference between this and the form ― these forms were used in the first interview and then they were revised and reissued for the second interview, where again they were not used. In the first interview, obviously these were criteria for marking the PQQ; in the second interview, I had turned them into design interview proforma. But, as you say, they disappeared at some point in time, and I found these from my own form.

 

504.          Mr Campbell QC: But you have told me that the PQQs were not marked by interview, they were marked by the panel members in the privacy of their own homes.

 

505.          Dr Gibbons: Yes.

 

506.          Mr Campbell QC: So what would be the point of producing a document with “interview number” on it, if it was not going to be used for the interview?

 

507.          Dr Gibbons: I am not sure that that was the document that was provided for them to mark the PQQs. The panel had similar documents to this containing the same information for the first stage interview that was sent to them by post a week before we met together for the first time on 23 March. So, they had the criteria, and I thought they would be using the criteria in their own home. I think what has happened here is the second stage material is mixed up with the first stage material.

 

508.          Mr Campbell QC: Right. Let us see if we can agree about just one thing before we stop for the day. When you had the 70 PQQs returned to the Scottish Office, what did you do with them?

 

509.          Dr Gibbons: They were held in the Parliament Team offices; duplicated and then held.

 

510.          Mr Campbell QC: Once the membership of the designer selection panel was finalised, what did you do with them then?

 

511.          Dr Gibbons: Several copies were made — enough copies to go to each member. Each of these copies was then offered to each panel member either for inspection at Victoria Quay or taken to wherever they wanted them to go.

 

512.          Mr Campbell QC: For what purpose?

 

513.          Dr Gibbons: For them to look at in the context of criteria that were being supplied to them; for them to have a preliminary examination of the submissions.

 

514.          Mr Campbell QC: Were they expected to grade them before coming to the meet with the other panel members?

 

515.          Dr Gibbons: They were expected — in fact, from the discussions that were taking place, that is what they were doing. I do not know whether they were going to mark them in the sense of arriving at a quantitative mark, but they were going to come along with their ideas about what they were going to support and what they were not going to support.

 

516.          Mr Campbell QC: It sounds like quite a loose arrangement, if you do not mind me saying so.

 

517.          Dr Gibbons: It was not an abnormal arrangement for a design panel like that.

 

518.          Mr Campbell QC: No, but quite a loose arrangement.

 

519.          Dr Gibbons: Yes, well I think it would be interesting to see what other panel members think about it.

 

520.          Mr Campbell QC: Not in the least interesting, Dr Gibbons. I am only interested in this process of appointment to this competition.

 

521.          Dr Gibbons: I understand that.

 

522.          Mr Campbell QC: Now, did they or did they not have instructions to grade these PQQs before coming together in their first meeting?

 

523.          Dr Gibbons: Not as specifically as that, to examine them and to come to the meeting with their views of them.

 

524.          Mr Campbell QC: I see. But not to grade and mark?

 

525.          Dr Gibbons: Not that I can recall, no.

 

526.          Mr Campbell QC: Right. I am sorry to say, Dr Gibbons, that there is a little more to cover, but it may be that we should do that on another occasion.

 

527.          Lord Fraser: What do you think Mr Campbell, about another half hour or 45 minutes?

 

528.          Mr Campbell QC: I wish I could be as optimistic as that. I think we might need Dr Gibbons for another hour to an hour and a half, I am sorry to say.

 

529.          Lord Fraser: Thank you, it is now 4.00 pm, so we will adjourn until tomorrow at 10.00 am.

 

Hearing adjourned at 4.00 pm.