HOLYROOD INQUIRY TRANSCRIPT

 

Wednesday 26 November 2003 (Morning Session)

 

Rt Hon the Lord Fraser of Carmyllie QC opened the hearing at 10.30 am.

 

1.      Mr Campbell QC: Sir, good morning. Sir, today’s witness for the Inquiry is Ms Kirsty Wark, who is here with Mr Ewan Easton, her solicitor. Ms Wark, good morning, and thank you very much for coming to the Inquiry.

 

2.      Ms Kirsty Wark (Former Member of the Scottish Parliament Designer Selection Panel): Good morning.

 

3.      Mr Campbell QC: Can you confirm that you are Kirsty Wark, that you have a business address in Marine Crescent in Glasgow, and that you are, as we know, a journalist and broadcaster?

 

4.      Ms Wark: Yes.

 

5.      Mr Campbell QC: Can you also confirm that you have a business interest in Wark Clements Ltd, a broadcasting company?

 

6.      Ms Wark: I do.

 

7.      Mr Campbell QC: And you are a director and shareholder in that company?

 

8.      Ms Wark: I am.

 

9.      Mr Campbell QC: Thank you. Can you please cast your mind back to early 1998 and tell me what you recall of being contacted by an official of the Scottish Office in connection with a proposed designer selection competition for the new Scottish Parliament building?

 

10.  Ms Wark: I was contacted, I think, mid-February by Paul Grice. He phoned me at the office. He said that there was going to be an international architectural competition to select a designer for the Scottish Parliament. There were going to be a number of people on this panel, including, obviously, professional architectural experts, and they were looking for a layperson to also take part in that selection. And partly, I think, because of my lifelong interest in Scottish architecture and my commitment to Scotland, he asked if I would be prepared to take part in the panel.

 

11.  Mr Campbell QC: Did he give you any information about the other people who would be on the panel?

 

12.  Ms Wark: No, not at that stage.

 

13.  Mr Campbell QC: And did he give you any indication of what sort of work and timescale would be expected of you?

 

14.  Ms Wark: He said it was a fairly swift process and that there would be some intense periods of interview. And then he wrote to me at the beginning of March, when the other people had been contacted, and gave me a rough timescale of what would happen. He did say that there would be a number of submissions to go through in the first stage.

 

15.  Mr Campbell QC: Could you look at SE/3/077A , please, which will come up on the screen. Is that the letter to you from Paul Grice?

 

16.  Ms Wark: That is the letter.

 

17.  Mr Campbell QC: You would see his signature on the second page. Could we just look at it for a moment? He says:

 

18.    “We are grateful to you for agreeing to be part of the selection panel which will advise the Secretary of State.”

 

19.  That is in the second paragraph, so by then you had obviously agreed to take part.

 

20.  Ms Wark: Yes.

 

21.  Mr Campbell QC: How long did it take you to make up your mind?

 

22.  Ms Wark: I thought about it for probably a week to 10 days — the undertaking. I knew I did not have the technical expertise, but I thought it was a great honour, to be honest, and I thought it was a way of doing some form of public service. I also believe passionately in a modern building.

 

23.  Mr Campbell QC: OK. Were you concerned about your own lack of architectural qualifications?

 

24.  Ms Wark: I had raised that with Paul Grice, but he had assured me there would be that expertise on the panel.  My understanding was that I was there more to look at how the architect could produce something that was aesthetically important for Scotland and would also fulfil the job. It would be a Parliament fit for Scotland.

 

25.  Mr Campbell QC: At this stage, did you know Donald Dewar?

 

26.  Ms Wark: Yes I did.

 

27.  Mr Campbell QC: Personally?

 

28.  Ms Wark: I had known him for probably 20 years.

 

29.  Mr Campbell QC: Anyway, let us go back to this letter. We see from the third paragraph who is to be on the panel: Dr Gibbons, who, he says:

 

30.    “I think you know is our Chief Architect”.

 

31.  Did you know Dr Gibbons?

 

32.  Ms Wark: No, I did not know John Gibbons.

 

33.  Mr Campbell QC: “Robert Gordon, who is Head of the Constitution Group… Professor MacMillan… and Miss O’Connor — ”

 

34.  from whom we heard yesterday. Then the task is set out:

 

35.    “To come to a view as to which of the applicants should be given the commission… likely to be time-consuming… He has been giving some thought to how the process would work.”

 

36.  Can I just look in a little detail at the next paragraph:

 

37.    “We would propose to hold an early meeting to review the results of the advertisement and to agree how to proceed. We will have sifted the applications received using the criteria published in the original advert, and the results will be presented to this panel for discussion and agreement.”

 

38.  Can we understand there that you may have taken that to mean that you were going to be presented with a sifted result from the first round of applications?

 

39.  Ms Wark: My understanding was that when I actually saw the PQQs — I saw 70 I thought that that was the total number submitted. I do not think there was any pre-sifting. I was not aware of any pre-sifting before I looked at the 70 PQQs.

 

40.  Mr Campbell QC: OK. That leads me on, then, to ask you about that. Did you, in the fullness of time, go to Victoria Quay at Dr Gibbons’s invitation?

 

41.  Ms Wark: What happened originally was, I think, I received a pile of boxes with the 70 PQQs to go through. The way the PQQs are laid out, there were a lot of technical things at the beginning, of which I had very little knowledge. But further on into the PQQs were examples of buildings, design projects by the submitting architects.

 

42.  Now when I received those PQQs, I am pretty sure those were all photocopies, and I certainly felt that if my role was to be more on an aesthetic front, I should see more. I would have been happier if I had seen the originals, at least in colour and in some more detail than photocopies.  So I went to Victoria Quay. I think there was a conversation with John Gibbons, but I do not actually remember him requesting me. I think I was quite keen to go.

 

43.  Mr Campbell QC: Right. Could you look, please, at, in the first place, the front page of a PQQ, just to jog your memory, CB/1/137? I am showing you the PQQ returned by Enric Miralles, just to put it in proper context. You can see that that is date-stamped 2 March. It is headed “Pre-Qualification Questionnaire”, it is filled in by Enric Miralles y Moya, and if we turn to CB/1/138, there is the type of detail which you have been discussing.

 

44.  Ms Wark: Yes, I think I have got that here.

 

45.  Mr Campbell QC: Could you turn to CB/1/140? This is the type of basic detail about the practice. Does this jog your memory?

 

46.  Ms Wark: I have seen that subsequently. At the time, that particularly did not concern me that there was a question mark at the registered office, if that is the part you are meaning.

 

47.  Mr Campbell QC: Say that again. I am sorry, I did not pick it up.

 

48.  Ms Wark: I did not think there was a problem that they did not have a registered office. I do not think I was aware that that was a concern.

 

49.  Mr Campbell QC: No, I am not making an issue of that. I am looking just at the form of what we have in front of us.

 

50.  Ms Wark: Yes, right, OK.

 

51.  Mr Campbell QC: Is this what you got for each applicant?

 

52.  Ms Wark: Yes, I got that.

 

53.  Mr Campbell QC: And we can see in this case, if we go down the page, that there is a short statement here about the practice.

 

54.  Ms Wark: I was more concerned about reading this kind of material.

 

55.  Mr Campbell QC: I am interested to know what additional material you got to show the work of the practice at this stage, before we come to further interviews.

 

56.  Ms Wark: At this stage, when I went to Edinburgh, I would have seen what was attached to that PQQ. I may have actually seen other examples of different architects’ work, because at home I do have, for example, an article about Behnisch’s work. I am not sure when I got that, but it was pretty comprehensive, and I was certainly aware that I had done a lot of reading.

 

57.  Mr Campbell QC: Were you, as a panel member, expected to check in each case the technical base material for each practice?

 

58.  Ms Wark: There was no guidance to me as to that before I reached the first meeting of the panel.

 

59.  Mr Campbell QC: And so, if we take as an example something like the level of professional indemnity cover, which is a matter we covered yesterday, you were not expected, as a lay member of the panel, to check the information in the PQQ against, for example, the requirements in the advertisement?

 

60.  Ms Wark: No. I did not think I necessarily had the professional expertise to do that. I think my understanding would be that there were people that did have that professional expertise.

 

61.  Mr Campbell QC: Can you recall, at this stage, what you were provided with in terms of examples or references to the completed work, or the work in progress, of each of the prospective competitors?

 

62.  Ms Wark: No. All we had was the PQQs before we went to the first panel meeting. And, as I say, there may have been some articles at Victoria Quay, but nothing else in any way physical to look at.

 

63.  Mr Campbell QC: Just let me dwell on this for one second more, if I may. CB/1/148 is a part of Enric Miralles’s four-page CV which was submitted. I will show you the hard copy to jog your memory. What I would like to know is whether, for example, in relation to the jobs under construction, of which there is a list here, you were given any examples of that work, either photographic examples or some form of graphic?

 

64.  Ms Wark: No, I do not think I was.

 

65.  Mr Campbell QC: OK. If we go to CB/1/155, this is part of the same PQQ for Enric Miralles. You can see down the left-hand edge that there is a list of jobs and services provided, the dates, approximate values, and so forth. Can you recall whether you were given any graphic material illustrating these jobs?

 

66.  Ms Wark: I do not think I was given anything on Utrecht. I might have been given Town Hall, Barcelona.

 

67.  Mr Campbell QC: When you went to Victoria Quay to look at the PQQs in Dr Gibbons’s office, was there attached to each PQQ additional material that had not been sent to you?

 

68.  Ms Wark: Not in that kind of form. There may have been articles with photographs. Joan O’Connor was very kind in supplying a lot of articles about a whole variety of the architects. That might have been what I am remembering. I do not remember any further material.

 

69.  Mr Campbell QC: And would it follow from that answer that you do not remember, either, when you might have got this material — at which stage in the competition?

 

70.  Ms Wark: No. I think it was probably more likely that, at the first full meeting, I think Joan might have produced something then.

 

71.  Mr Campbell QC: So you went to Victoria Quay, you met Dr Gibbons, you found yourself in a room with 70 PQQs. What were you expected to do when you were there?

 

72.  Ms Wark: I thought my role, at that point, was to sift through them again and to have a further look at them, and to make some kind of list of the ones that, to me, looked most interesting, looked most exciting. And, taking that with the written work that was in the PQQs about what these architects had either achieved or were in the process of achieving, make some kind of list.

 

73.  Now, clearly, I knew, certainly, all the Scottish architects by repute, and I knew many of the London ones because I had done a conference on architecture in London, and some of the international ones by repute. But what I did not know, and what was good to sit down and do then, was to look at the numbers who had completed a Parliament building somewhere in the world, and that, indeed, formed part of the long list.

 

74.  Mr Campbell QC: And did you make yourself a shortlist?

 

75.  Ms Wark: I have not got it now, but I did make myself a list of perhaps 20 or so.

 

76.  Mr Campbell QC: Were you assisted in that process by anyone from the Scottish Office?

 

77.  Ms Wark: No. I think I had a conversation with John Gibbons, but I think it was more to do with the way it was going to go at the first meeting rather than directing me to particular architects. I really do not think that happened.

 

78.  Mr Campbell QC: Did you then perform the sifting process essentially by yourself?

 

79.  Ms Wark: Yes. There were people coming in and out and saying “hello”, but there was nobody sitting down at my shoulder saying anything about individual submissions.

 

80.  Mr Campbell QC: The first meeting of the panel, we know, was on 23 March 1998. I think you were there, although somewhere it said that you arrived a little late.

 

81.  Ms Wark: Not to my knowledge.

 

82.  Mr Campbell QC: It does not matter. What happened at that meeting?

 

83.  Ms Wark: That was the first time we had all met. At that meeting, in the morning, particularly with Joan and Andy, we sat down and really quite thoroughly went through all the submissions. At that stage, I am quite happy to say that I was guided, to a certain degree, by Joan and Andy giving me information about different practices, and so forth, and their views. But it was actually a very — and this came to be the characteristic of this whole selection process — it was actually quite thorough. And really from that point on, we all kind of immersed ourselves in what was going on.

 

84.  So by the time, during the afternoon, I think Donald Dewar did come in in the afternoon — whether he had done some pre-sifting or whether that had been done for him, I am not sure. But we had had quite thorough discussions, and we continued to have those in the presence of Donald Dewar.

 

85.  Mr Campbell QC: I am not really concerned to ask you what Donald Dewar may have done before that because it may not be within your direct knowledge. Would it be fair to say that in the process of working through this bundle of documents, there was quite a lot of subjective input from those in the architectural world, particularly Professor MacMillan and Miss O’Connor?

 

86.  Ms Wark: Yes.

 

87.  Mr Campbell QC: By the quality of practices?

 

88.  Ms Wark: Yes, through their own detailed knowledge.

 

89.  Mr Campbell QC: Was Mr Gordon there?

 

90.  Ms Wark: Yes, I think he would be.

 

91.  Mr Campbell QC: And Dr Gibbons?

 

92.  Ms Wark: Yes, he would definitely have been there.

 

93.  Mr Campbell QC: Anybody else that you remember?

 

94.  Ms Wark: I think Paul Grice was also there. Bill Armstrong may have been there as well.

 

95.  Mr Campbell QC:  When you, together, worked your way through the 70 PQQs, did you either retain or eliminate competitors on any sort of systematic basis, for example, by scoring them?

 

96.  Ms Wark:  I do not think we did.  I think we must have looked at them in groups because there were so many of them and discussed them and made selections.  But I do not think we used a formal scoring system.

 

10.45 am

 

97.  Mr Campbell QC:  Do you remember being shown a scored sheet, a matrix — a sort of squared off sheet — with the names of the practices and scores attributed to the PQQs by Mr Armstrong?

 

98.  Ms Wark:  No.

 

99.  Mr Campbell QC:  What was the result then of the meeting of 23 March?

 

100.          Ms Wark:  We came to what I thought was an extremely impressive long list of architects who had a mix of abilities, projects and geographical spread.

 

101.          Mr Campbell QC:  That was 12 in number, eventually, was it not?

 

102.          Ms Wark:  Yes.

 

103.          Mr Campbell QC:  Did you subsequently see a minute of that meeting that Mr Grice produced?

 

104.          Ms Wark:  Yes, I did see a minute of that meeting.  That meeting was certainly minuted.

 

105.          Mr Campbell QC:  Yes.  And you are quite happy with it?

 

106.          Ms Wark:  Yes.

 

107.          Mr Campbell QC:  Just for your notes, it is SE/3/092, but we do not need to turn it up.  Who chaired the meeting Ms Wark?

 

108.          Ms Wark:  Donald Dewar chaired the meeting.

 

109.          Mr Campbell QC:  Now, I would like to ask you about your impression, please, of Donald Dewar’s understanding of the process.

 

110.          Ms Wark:  He decided that the process was going to be very democratic, that we would come to an agreement and move forward.  He did not impose any, as it were, scoring system.  He took advice.  He did defer and took advice from both Andy MacMillan and Joan O’Connor, and to a certain extent, from John Gibbons as well.

 

111.          Mr Campbell QC:  By democratic do you mean amongst the people of Scotland or the people in the room?

 

112.          Ms Wark:  Clearly, it was among the people in the room.

 

113.          Mr Campbell QC:  Well it is just as well to be clear.

 

114.          Ms Wark:  Yes.

 

115.          Mr Campbell QC:  Mr Dewar was not an architect by training.

 

116.          Ms Wark:  No.

 

117.          Mr Campbell QC:  And he has been variously described as having certain artistic sensibilities by other witnesses to this Inquiry.  What I would like to try to get to is whether you felt that he was understanding what was going on and understanding what he was about — what the team was about.

 

118.          Ms Wark:  I think that, when he came to the first meeting, he had an understanding of what was going to happen, but it was a steep learning curve, I think, for everyone on the panel, or should I say, for everybody who was not an expert on the panel.  He then learned quite quickly, I think, about how to proceed.  He did have a huge interest in architecture.

 

119.          Mr Campbell QC:  What do you think his preoccupations were in relation to the building, or rather the competitor, that might eventually emerge from this process?

 

120.          Ms Wark:  I think he was clearly concerned that we would choose an architect, a designer, who would deliver.  But, I think his overriding concern was to get a landmark, a great building for Scotland, for the people of Scotland.  I do not think he had any arrogance about what his contribution was going to be.  And I certainly do not think he wanted a grand building; grand was never in it.  He wanted a landmark building; he wanted something that suggested a new modern Scotland.

 

121.          Mr Campbell QC:  Can you help me differentiate; can you help me with your understanding of the difference between grand and great in that answer?

 

122.          Ms Wark:  Yes.  A grand building, to me, would be something like a monumental building.  I had visited the Parliament in Helsinki, which was like a monumental classicism which was very imposing.  Or a building that was much more in tune with the democratic process in Scotland, the place it was going to be, and would not dominate.  That, to me, is the way… he did not want a great kind of monument.  He wanted a working Parliament that was aesthetically pleasing and, particularly for this site, would complement Holyrood.

 

123.          Mr Campbell QC:  Holyrood Palace you mean?

 

124.          Ms Wark:  Holyrood Palace, absolutely.

 

125.          Mr Campbell QC:  Where would you say, on his scale of priorities, was the issue of cost?

 

126.          Ms Wark:  Clearly, I think what happened was that, clearly there was a ball-park figure and ball-park is the operative word because everybody was asked to submit in the region of £50 million.  I suspect you would be hard pressed to find an architect who would refuse to go to a competition because he did not think he could build it for £50 million.  I do not think that was ever going to be an option.  So, we… and he was concerned about costs, but our concern, my concern particularly, was not over-ridingly about costs and I do not think his was over-ridingly about costs either.

 

127.          Mr Campbell QC:  Did cost feature much in your discussions?

 

128.          Ms Wark:  We asked, I think, certainly in the long list meeting. In one sense, the problem was that what you were choosing was a designer not a building.  It is easier, I am sure, if you have a building in front of you to have a clear idea.  But what we were doing essentially, was asking the designer if the concept that they were considering and they were promoting would be realisable within a region of £50 million, and the answer, invariably, from the applicants was yes.

 

129.          Mr Campbell QC:  They would say that would they not, to get the job?

 

130.          Ms Wark:  My point.  But at that stage, I have to say, there was nobody really concerned.  It was not the overriding concern of the panel; that was not our first priority.  At that stage what we were looking for was somebody who had a great vision for a Parliament.

 

131.          Mr Campbell QC:  What would you say was the overriding concern of the panel, a designer vision, or a design itself?

 

132.          Ms Wark:  A designer vision.  In a sense, the designer has to come with an idea of what they are going to put forward.  But you could tell from, I think, the way that different architects — and I do not want to go into it — we are talking about whether they had grasped the idea of the place, the purpose, and the importance of the site.

 

133.          Mr Campbell QC:  In Donald Dewar’s scale of priorities how important was completion of the project in a given timescale?

 

134.          Ms Wark:  I think it was pretty important.  It was not relentlessly asked: “Do you think you can complete it?”, because obviously you did not have a design.  So, in a sense, it was kind of unknown and there were clearly, when we had finished, going to be different stages.  But at that stage, it was not unreasonable to assume that it could be completed.  I am not sure.  I did not have the expertise to know.  I think, the architectural experts were probably a little less sure.

 

135.          Mr Campbell QC:  But you would remember as a political journalist that the devolution idea was rolling out in one manifestation or another through 1997 into 1998 with the passage of the Scotland Act and so forth.  What I would like to try to find out is whether Mr Dewar imparted to the panel any sense of urgency about the project.

 

136.          Ms Wark:  I did not sense any sense of urgency from a party political point of view.  At that time, of course, there was the Consultative Steering Group, so there was a kind of cross-party consensus — certainly from major figures in the parties — that there was to be a design process.  So there must have been some discussion with the key political leaders about the timescale.  So, therefore, there must have been some idea that actually what we wanted was a Parliament for Scotland in a reasonable timescale — it was not going to drag on — and that perhaps… I do remember, I think the original plan was to have it ready for the — not the 1999 — but the next set of parliamentary elections.  I think I am right in saying that.

 

137.          Mr Campbell QC:  You mentioned a Consultative Steering Group there.  Can I assume from that that you were aware, as a panel member, that these cross-party discussions were going on at the time?

 

138.          Ms Wark:  There was no controversy at the time about the idea that we were setting out to find a designer for a Scottish Parliament.

 

139.          Mr Campbell QC:  That is not quite what I asked you.  The Consultative Steering Group, which you mentioned two answers ago, was I think, we know, a cross-party group looking at the mechanisms in terms of which the Parliament would operate.  As a panel member, were you aware of the deliberations of that group and the interim conclusions it was coming to?

 

140.          Ms Wark:  No.  I do not want to mislead on that.  I was not aware of that, but I had made an assumption because there had not been any controversy that the building of a Parliament would be part of that discussion.

 

141.          Mr Campbell QC:  What did you know then, as a panel member, of what would be required in a Parliament?  After all, it is not something we build every day.

 

142.          Ms Wark:  No.  I knew from the Scottish Constitutional Convention the idea was that there would not be an Upper Chamber and therefore, a lot of pre-legislative work would be done in the Committees, and that is why the Committee rooms in the Parliament Building were to be important and they were to be sufficient to the task.  And that the Chamber itself was to be important, but it was not to be hugely dominant.  That is the kind of issue that was discussed.

 

143.          Mr Campbell QC:  You must have got that information from somewhere?

 

144.          Ms Wark:  Well presumably I had, knowing the Scottish Constitution Convention, and knowing that, but also I think we discussed that at the first sift.

 

145.          Mr Campbell QC:  In the scale of priorities, if I can return to that, was technology and the use of technology at all important?

 

146.          Ms Wark:  Yes.  I remember that.

 

147.          Mr Campbell QC:  Or seen as important?

 

148.          Ms Wark:  I remember it as being seen as important that the architects should realise the importance of technology for this reason: I remember there was a discussion, we were talking about a Parliament for the 21^st century and the idea — and I do not know whether that has survived — but the idea that, at some point, MSPs could take part in the proceedings remotely; that people from Shetland or Inverness or wherever could take part very happily in the proceedings of the Parliament.  So technology was an issue and we wanted to make sure that the technological expertise was there to deliver that.

 

149.          Mr Campbell QC:  Can we move then to look at the interview of the 12 short-listed candidates, which I think we know from other evidence was on 4, 5 and 6 May, two days in Edinburgh and one day in London.  You took part in all three days, did you?

 

150.          Ms Wark:  Yes I did.

 

151.          Mr Campbell QC:  Was the Secretary of State present at all those meetings?

 

152.          Ms Wark:  Yes.

 

153.          Mr Campbell QC:  Tell me what happened, please.

 

154.          Ms Wark:  Well, we had quite a substantial amount of time to interview each architect.  Then, I remember that after each interview, we took stock and we thought about and wrote down — I mean, I have not got them now — but we all wrote down notes about the most important and relevant things that each of the applicants had said.  Then, at the end of the day… because I think we had four in the morning, four in the afternoon, then we went to London overnight and interviewed four in London, I think it was, the next day.  So, we had discussions at the end of the first day.  I remember the rest of the panel went out, I think Donald Dewar might have gone back to his office, but the rest of the panel went out for something to eat and I went back to Glasgow and joined them on the sleeper.  We then convened at Dover House at 7 o’clock in the morning and then we had our first interviews about 9.00 am.

 

155.          Mr Campbell QC: Yes.  Can you recall whether the process of considering, interviewing and then, as it were, discussing and then moving on to the next one;  can you recall whether that was approached in any systematic fashion?

 

156.          Ms Wark:  I think, yes it was.  I mean, I know it was because Joan O’Connor created her own system, which seemed like quite a good system with different abilities.

 

157.          Mr Campbell QC:  Did Scottish Office officials help you with an indication or an indicative system that you should use?  After all, you were coming to this as a layperson.

 

158.          Ms Wark:  No.  I think early on, we rejected that and we adopted Joan’s system.

 

159.          Mr Campbell QC:  Could you look at JO/1/087, please to see whether this jogs your memory, with apologies to the Inquiry because we have seen this before.  That is a page which is clearly headed “Interview Number” and sets out a range of criteria, and then as we go down we can see what is to be expected from different grades of marking.  The next page contains a simple matrix, Ms Wark, like this.  Do you recall seeing that system and having it put in front of you?

 

11.00 am

 

160.          Ms Wark:  I recall seeing this, and I may have seen that grid as well, which you are going to show me.  But I recall seeing this.

 

161.          Mr Campbell QC:  Go to the next page please (JO/1/088).  What I would like to know is whether it was used by you.

 

162.          Ms Wark:  No.

 

163.          Mr Campbell QC:  It was not used?

 

164.          Ms Wark:  No.  I do not think it was used.  I am pretty sure it was not used.

 

165.          Mr Campbell QC:  How then, having interviewed one and then another and then another, did you record your impressions with a view ultimately, of course, to choosing a winner?  You are dealing with 12 at this stage.

 

166.          Ms Wark:  Individually, after each interview we would have a conversation and then at the end of each block of four we would have a conversation.  At that point, I think we were measuring them against each other in some kind of informal way.

 

167.          Mr Campbell QC:  But not in a systematic way?

 

168.          Ms Wark:  I do not think so.  I am just trying to remember when Joan O’Connor’s own matrix kicked in.

 

169.          Mr Campbell QC:  Well, I will show you that in a minute.  Can I ask you before I do, did you have the benefits of submissions from any other Scottish Office staff, including Historic Scotland, in relation to the 12 finalists?

 

170.          Ms Wark:  Yes, we did.  We had a submission from John Hume.

 

171.          Mr Campbell QC:  Chief Inspector of Historic Buildings?

 

172.          Ms Wark:  Yes.

 

173.          Mr Campbell QC:  Do you recall seeing in addition a submission from Mr Bill Armstrong?

 

174.          Ms Wark:  No.

 

175.          Mr Campbell QC:  Anybody else?

 

176.          Ms Wark:  Yes, Queensberry House.  There was… I think James Simpson.  I am sure at that stage we had quite a substantial document on Queensberry House.

 

177.          Mr Campbell QC:  From Simpson and Brown?

 

178.          Ms Wark:  Yes.  Which had been completed, I think, towards the end of the year — 1997.

 

179.          Mr Campbell QC:  Thank you.  And do you remember also whether you had any submissions from the conservation associations, the Cockburn Association, Scottish Civic Trust?

 

180.          Ms Wark:  I do not actually remember seeing those.  We may well have had those, but I do not remember seeing those.

 

181.          Mr Campbell QC:  Now, on this occasion, did Miralles attend himself?

 

182.          Ms Wark:  No.  He attended with Benedetta Tagliabue, and I think he also had somebody from Ove Arup as well.

 

183.          Mr Campbell QC:  And did you, after the process of interviewing the 12 people, have a view as to whether there was a clear leader at that stage?

 

184.          Ms Wark:  I think there was not a clear leader.  I think people had been impressed with Enric Miralles, but there were others in that group who were pretty substantial architectural practices.  So I think that we did not have an absolute outright winner.  I do not think that would have been right at that stage to have made that kind of assumption, frankly. 

 

185.          We had a group of five.  The original plan had not necessarily been to have five, but we had a five that we wanted to go forward with, all of whom would have produced, I think, probably a pretty exceptional building.

 

186.          Mr Campbell QC:  And that group of five was not arrived at by any systematic scoring method but by a conversational approach which —

 

187.          Ms Wark:  But we did score.  I am sure we did use Joan O’Connor’s matrix, but it was quite informal.  I think there was a resistance.

 

188.          Mr Campbell QC:  Can you look at JO/1/091A and see if that jogs your memory?

 

189.          Ms Wark:  Yes.  You see, Joan had done this and, of course, showed us it all, but she was working away at this.

 

190.          Mr Campbell QC:  Working away at it herself?

 

191.          Ms Wark:  Yes.

 

192.          Mr Campbell QC:  But not necessarily sharing —

 

193.          Ms Wark:  Oh no.  I think she shared it and I think we had a… I do not think we had such detail every time, but we might have actually… I remember that there was a kind of benchmark.

 

194.          Mr Campbell QC:  She has written “80-plus required query” on the top left-hand corner.

 

195.          Ms Wark:  I think that is exactly what happened.

 

196.          Mr Campbell QC:  Right.  So that might be a reference back to a criteria-based formula.  I have taken the names off this, of course, for present purposes.

 

197.          Ms Wark:  Can I just say that I do not think this is something that Joan dreamt up in the sense that I think she had been involved in competitions before, and this was a perfectly reasonable way of scoring. 

 

198.          Mr Campbell QC:  But not one imposed on the panel by Scottish Office officials?

 

199.          Ms Wark:  No.

 

200.          Mr Campbell QC:  Now then, having decided on five, sorry —

 

201.          Lord Fraser:  I think the original proposal was less than five.

 

202.          Ms Wark:  I have that.  My original letter from Paul Grice talked about three or four.

 

203.          Lord Fraser:  Yes.  But if you look at those figures that have come out on Joan O’Connor’s matrix… 86… We are not concerned with who that is, but we will find that there are five competitors who are pretty close together, and then there is really quite a marked drop below that.  So, is it that sort of reasoning that led you to have five? 

 

204.          Ms Wark:  Yes.

 

205.          Lord Fraser:  Because there is one clearly ahead at 86, and then there are three marked at 80 and one at 79.

 

206.          Ms Wark:  That is exactly right, because we felt that they were of sufficient merit to… in fact, what we thought was — I can remember this now — why should we restrict it to three or four?  We want to have as rich a field as possible and as broad a scope as possible.  We thought we were capable of interviewing five.  So, when that scoring came up, it was clear that there were people in that area, and I think it would have been wrong to exclude them.

 

207.          Lord Fraser:  Yes.  It would have been odd to have left out someone who had scored 79, if there were three others who seemed to demand a scoring of 80.

 

208.          Ms Wark:  Yes, given that this was not entirely scientific.

 

209.          Lord Fraser:  Indeed.

 

210.          Mr Campbell QC:  Ms Wark, did you attend a meeting on 3 June 1998, before the final interviews?

 

211.          Ms Wark:  I think I did, but I cannot be sure about that, but I do think I did.

 

212.          Mr Campbell QC:  I will be corrected if I am wrong — I think that meeting was in Scotland, and probably in Edinburgh.  I do not recall from yesterday’s evidence.  Miss O’Connor said she was present.

 

213.          Ms Wark:  Yes, I think I was.  I am not entirely sure.

 

214.          Mr Campbell QC:  To try to jog your memory, I think that this meeting took place after the boards for the final competition had been submitted.

 

215.          Ms Wark:  Well, I was there then.  I was there.

 

216.          Mr Campbell QC:  You would have seen these boards on two occasions.

 

217.          Ms Wark:  Yes.

 

218.          Mr Campbell QC:  Once without the competitors, and subsequently at an interview towards the end of June with the competitors.  Is that right?

 

219.          Ms Wark:  Yes.

 

220.          Mr Campbell QC:  Do you remember anything about that meeting of 3 June?

 

221.          Ms Wark:  Well, I think we discussed the different relationships, because each of the architectural teams had in some way a relationship – and they were all different, I think — with a firm of architects in Scotland.

 

222.          Mr Campbell QC:  And that included EMBT from Barcelona, who were one of the finalists?

 

223.          Ms Wark:  Yes.

 

224.          Mr Campbell QC:  They had come to the first stage on their own and they had come through the first interview on their own.  What was the position by the time it got to 3 June?

 

225.          Ms Wark:  I think the tie-up with RMJM had been decided by then.

 

226.          Mr Campbell QC:  Yes.  Was there any discussion about the propriety, or the appearance of propriety, in relation to a change of identity between a competitor competing with one identity at the opening stage and changing his identity as the competition progressed?

 

227.          Ms Wark:  Well, identity is the most important thing, because we were not aware that it was a change of identity.  The lead designer was still Enric Miralles.  What he was doing, in a sense, was giving himself the anchor of a very experienced architectural firm — in a sense, like the others had done already.  So it was only seen, I think, certainly to my point of view, as an improvement.

 

228.          Mr Campbell QC:  Would you have seen, or been party to, the technicality of any link-up between a competitor and a Scottish firm? 

 

229.          Ms Wark:  No.

 

230.          Mr Campbell QC:  We know, for example, that Meier linked up with Keppie Design, and Denton Corker Marshall linked up with Glass Murray.

 

231.          Ms Wark:  No, my understanding would be that these linkages – I am pretty sure – were for the duration of the project.  I think Glass Murray and Denton Corker Marshall were very close; they had been architects together and they had a really close relationship.  I think the other relationships were vastly different.

 

232.          Mr Campbell QC:  We heard yesterday from Dr Gibbons that his position was that he would not have accepted anything other than a joint venture tie-up.  He did not explain quite, technically, what he meant by that.  But what I would like to know from you is if you can recall whether the panel was concerned with the nature and structure of any prospective tie-up.

 

233.          Ms Wark:  Not in any formal way.  But I think we were aware… Put it this way: there was a difference in some of the shortlisted architects between a more kind of symbiotic relationship than a kind of opportunistic relationship.  So, therefore, architects felt the need to hook up with Scottish practices — I think some just for the face value — but actually in the case of the Miralles/RMJM connection, there was a definite merit to it, because RMJM could deliver absolutely on the detail.  They had huge experience in areas like acoustics, and so forth.  And there was no question that Miralles would still be the lead designer, but that the hook-up would give ballast to the bid.

 

234.          Mr Campbell QC:  You would describe that as opportunistic, would you?

 

235.          Ms Wark:  No, I would not.  That was not one of the more opportunistic ones I was thinking of.  I think this was just a very sensible connection.

 

236.          Mr Campbell QC:  Right.  But there was no issue before you that here was a change of identity from stage one to stage three, or between the two?

 

237.          Ms Wark:  No, not in any way that would disbar an architect.

 

238.          Mr Campbell QC:  Look at JO/1/090, which are Miss O’Connor’s notes, taken on 3 June.

 

239.          The third bullet point:

 

240. “Problems with Miralles vis-à-vis delivery — may be remedied by liaison with RMJM?”

 

241.          Now, that is her note and obviously you are not responsible for it in any way.  I wonder if you recall a discussion about any problem that Miralles might have had with delivering.

 

242.          Ms Wark:  Well, there are two things to say about that:  first of all, I, for some reason, had thought the liaison with RMJM had been decided on then, and I think there was a concern about delivery.  He was a designer and what I came to realise when I read a lot about him — a brilliant architect.  But I think that what RMJM would give the Scottish Office, and certainly gave the panel, was comfort that it would be possible.

 

243.          Mr Campbell QC:  Perhaps you could just completely deal with this point and then leave it.  Can I show you SE/3/103, which is the press release from the Scottish Office announcing the five finalists?

 

244.          There is a list of five names, you see, with Enric Miralles y Moya as the fourth name.  Now, if you take it from me that that press release is dated 7 May, if we then move to SE/3/105, and this is a press release in relation to the exhibitions in five locations.  If we go down a little further, we see at the first paragraph under “Background” that “the five teams are”, and in the third line:

 

245. “Enric Miralles y Moya and RMJM Scotland Ltd”. 

 

246.          And you take it from me that this is dated 5 June.  So, we are between 7 May and 5 June.  That relationship has been —

 

247.          Ms Wark:  Cemented.

 

248.          Mr Campbell QC:  Well, at least it has taken place.  Whether it has been cemented or not may be for another witness.

 

249.          So we can pinpoint that with reasonable accuracy to that month.

 

250.          Ms Wark:  Yes.

 

251.          Mr Campbell QC:  And that is consistent with your recollection?

 

252.          Ms Wark:  It is.

 

253.          Mr Campbell QC:  And you do not have a recollection of a problem with a change of identity?

 

254.          Ms Wark:  No, I do not.

 

255.          Mr Campbell QC:  Ms Wark, did you between the first interview and the last interview conduct any visits to any of the competing practices?

 

256.          Ms Wark:  No, I did not.

 

257.          Mr Campbell QC:  Were you asked to?

 

258.          Ms Wark:  Yes, but I was unable to because of other work commitments.

 

259.          Mr Campbell QC:  Did you, about that time, work on a series for the BBC called “One Foot in the Past”?

 

260.          Ms Wark:  I did.

 

261.          Mr Campbell QC:  What was the nature of that series?

 

262.          Ms Wark:  The BBC series “One Foot in the Past” had been running for eight years, and the nature of the series was particularly to look at the built environment; issues concerning historic buildings, issues concerning modernity, buildings falling into disrepair.  That went out weekly, over a period of 10 weeks at a time.  That was my period of filming.

 

263.          Mr Campbell QC:  Yes.  Did you make the programme for eight years?

 

264.          Ms Wark:  Yes.

 

265.          Mr Campbell QC:  As part of one edition of the programme, did you do some pieces to camera with members of the designer selection panel?

 

266.          Ms Wark:  I did.  I did not interview members of the designer selection panel.  The BBC— it was their programme — did the interviews with the panel.  I said at the beginning, “I declare my interest”, and I said that I was a member of this panel and we were looking for a new Parliament for Scotland.  Thereafter, I went away to Helsinki and to Marseilles to look at different Parliaments, which was very advantageous in a sense, because it gave me a sense of what different Parliaments were like, and the BBC put the film together.

 

267.          Mr Campbell QC:  One of the people who the BBC did a short interview with was Joan O’Connor?

 

268.          Ms Wark:  I think they did that on site with her, yes.

 

269.          Mr Campbell QC:  We move then to 22 June 1998, to the final interviews, and I think we know that five competitors appeared on that day with the boards that had been submitted earlier.  Was there additional material?

 

11.15 am

 

270.          Ms Wark:  There was quite a lot of additional material; different levels of additional material from different architects.  There were the boards and there were also balsa wood models for some of them.  I do not think Corker Denton Marshall came with balsa wood models, but the others did.

 

271.          Mr Campbell QC:  Was the process structured?  If so, how?

 

272.          Ms Wark:  Well, yes, because first of all the architects made their presentation using the boards and the models, and then there would be a cross-examination.

 

273.          Mr Campbell QC:  Did you take part in that?

 

274.          Ms Wark:  I did.

 

275.          Mr Campbell QC:  How did the team approach the ranking, or the scoring, of the submissions?

 

276.          Ms Wark:  By incredibly detailed discussions.  Not by any formal scoring — as was done with Joan O’Connor’s system before — but by detailed discussions of each of the entries.

 

277.          Mr Campbell QC:  Did you discuss each one as they took place, or did you wait until the end of the day to discuss them?

 

278.          Ms Wark:  Both.  We discussed after each one and at the end of the day.

 

279.          Mr Campbell QC:  How did you arrive at a result?

 

280.          Ms Wark:  We had all basically taken notes and given a great deal of thought to who could provide the most exciting and best building for Scotland, and who was the designer that could deliver that best; who was most in sympathy with what a Scottish Parliament should achieve, and each of us made quite substantial contributions to the interviews.  And I would say this: in a sense there was no overriding imperative to arrive at one particular decision.

 

281.          Mr Campbell QC:  You mean one particular person?

 

282.          Ms Wark:  Absolutely not.

 

283.          Mr Campbell QC:  Tell me about the Secretary of State’s contribution to this process.  Was he passive or active?

 

284.          Ms Wark:  He was active. I mean, he was active in the shortlist, but if I just take you back to the long list, I mean, he asked some pretty bruising questions of the architects.  Being a layman, he did not… I think the others were very forthright as well, but he asked some very detailed questions of particular elements of the concept designs.

 

285.          Mr Campbell QC:  What do you mean by bruising questions?

 

286.          Ms Wark:  Well, he would say, you know, “Is that not a ridiculous element of that building, how could that possibly work?”, that kind of level of discussion, I think.  It was refreshing, and I think it was right that he should do that.  My own view is that he would focus enormously on the selection process, and as the whole thing went on he became really very immersed in it, and I think he found it very stimulating intellectually, as we all did.  My private view was that I thought that he would have tended to have been very cautious about architects, but when he came to the shortlist we were all very aware that we had a huge responsibility on us to get a building that would be of huge merit, and that was the overriding concern, rather than, necessarily at that stage, the cost, because we all had something with us which told us whether or not they would be roughly in line.

 

287.          Mr Campbell QC:  I will come back to that in a minute.  I am interested in this observation you have made about caution.  One might think that here you were in —

 

288.          Ms Wark:  Conservative.  Should I say conservative, with a small “c”?

 

289.          Mr Campbell QC:  OK, conservative.  But here you are in a rather privileged crucible of decision-making, if you like, and obviously making an important decision for Scotland.  One would tend to caution, would one not?

 

290.          Ms Wark:  I think one would tend to caution.  I think other people on the panel perhaps talked about — there was always an element of risk.  That is not necessarily a negative.  I think if risk is managed well it can produce something which is very, very special.  So I found that everybody on the panel was very open to the ideas the architects came forward with.  Nobody had preconceived ideas about what kind —

 

291.          Mr Campbell QC:  Including the Secretary of State?

 

292.          Ms Wark:  Including the Secretary of State.

 

293.          Mr Campbell QC:  What about any questioning, particularly of Miralles, of how the project could be delivered from a distance, how the relationship might work between Edinburgh and Barcelona?

 

294.          Ms Wark:  In the same way that there were questions about whether relationships could work between California, New York, Australia.  Because there was always going to be the question that the lead designer of whatever team was not necessarily going to be domiciled in Scotland.  But there was a reassurance that each of the architects actually on the shortlist, I think, would set up office, or, as it were, encampments within existing architectural practices in Scotland.  That is really what you wanted.  You wanted to see that there was going to be evidence that they were going to be locked on, rather than physically there the whole time.

 

295.          Mr Campbell QC:  You presumably heard from Dr Gibbons that he had been to Barcelona with Andy MacMillan?

 

296.          Ms Wark:  Yes.

 

297.          Mr Campbell QC:  You would be aware that the style of Miralles’s studio was perhaps a little idiosyncratic, to put it no higher.

 

298.          Ms Wark:  Well it was a teaching studio as well, I think, but there were also senior architects there, and, of course, not to forget that Benedetta Tagliabue was a senior architect as well.

 

299.          Mr Campbell QC:  Indeed.

 

300.          But quite a different philosophical set up from RMJM in Edinburgh and its offices round the world?

 

301.          Ms Wark:  Well, I have never been to RMJM’s offices, but that is what I understand.

 

302.          Mr Campbell QC:  Did you understand that at the time?

 

303.          Ms Wark:  Yes, because for a start, RMJM had produced Victoria Quay and the concert hall auditorium in Glasgow.  I knew that they were a long-established practice in Scotland.

 

304.          Mr Campbell QC:  But a different style entirely from what Miralles was telling you about himself?

 

305.          Ms Wark:  Yes.  A completely different style.

 

306.          Mr Campbell QC:  Was that a concern, that giving the contract to these two could achieve a workable symbiosis which would deliver?

 

307.          Ms Wark:  No, it was not a concern.  They were different styles of people, but I think there was quite a lot of mutual respect, and that again gave us comfort.

 

308.          Mr Campbell QC:  But you can have mutual respect and not necessarily look at the parties respecting each other as being able to work together.

 

309.          Ms Wark:  Absolutely.

 

310.          Mr Campbell QC:  I mean that happens in courtrooms everyday.

 

311.          Ms Wark:  Absolutely, but the key thing was here, there was an understanding — and this came out very clearly at the shortlist meeting — there was an understanding then at the shortlisted meeting that RMJM knew their role would be, in a sense, delivery and some detail design features, and that the overall concept and the way that the Parliament would unfold would be very much Miralles’s vision and, in a sense, that RMJM would be, to use that awful word, “enabling” this to happen.

 

312.          Mr Campbell QC:  It is not necessarily an awful word, is it, if it is concerned with delivery and execution?

 

313.          Ms Wark:  Yes.  In effect, that is exactly what RMJM were there to do.  I did not have a concern — that was the other thing — I did not have a concern.  I knew that the strength of Miralles’s vision would not be in any way diminished by a connection with RMJM.  In fact, there was no reason to think that RMJM would try and, as it were, steal Miralles’s clothes.  But RMJM had their own expertise to bring to bear.  I think Miralles realised that.

 

314.          Mr Campbell QC:  So what was the feature of the interview that gave you comfort that Miralles’s vision would work well with RMJM’s execution ability?

 

315.          Ms Wark:  Well, partly because RMJM were there too — in the room.

 

316.          Mr Campbell QC:  Does that mean anything more than they were in the same room?

 

317.          Ms Wark:  No.  No, it does not mean anything that they are in the same room. But there had been conversations between RMJM and Miralles, one assumed, because they came with a very clearly worked out way of how they going to operate. 

 

318.          Mr Campbell QC:  Was that reflected in the boards?  I think you have a copy of the boards there.

 

319.          Ms Wark:  Yes, I have.  It was reflected in the boards.

 

320.          Mr Campbell QC:  Was this exploration, as I am doing with you now, of how this relationship would work part of the interview?

 

321.          Ms Wark:  Yes it was.

 

322.          Mr Campbell QC:  Could you look at JO/1/099 please?

 

323.          This again is a page from Miss O’Connor’s notes relating to the EMBT submission.  You will see that she lists the names of the people present at the top.  She puts EMBT in Edinburgh for the duration of the design phase.  She quotes from Miralles:

 

324. “an organised way of sitting together”.

 

325.          “RMJM designer input” gets two exclamation marks, whatever that may mean, but it is the last one really, the little arrow, that I would like to draw your attention to.  She wrote:

 

326. “working relationship?  Is EM controllable?  Significant risk but worth it… Yes.”

 

327.          Looking at those — of course they are somebody else’s notes — was Miralles a risk?  Did the panel think that he was a risk?

 

328.          Ms Wark:  He was a risk. He was an ebullient figure, but I think he was also quite accommodating.  I think that you saw that in the duration of the interview. This whole project was incredibly important to Enric Miralles.  He had a huge gut feeling, a passion, that he wanted to do this.  And he understood that in order to deliver it he should be with RMJM.  Now, we did not know how that relationship was going to develop, but at the time it gave us comfort that they could work together.  It would be a risk, but they could work together.  So I think she is right there.  I think that working relationship, EM controllable — yes.

 

329.          Mr Campbell QC:  Your apprehension was perhaps about Miralles, and Miralles at a distance, but your comfort came from your knowledge that RMJM were to be partners in the enterprise, is that fair?

 

330.          Ms Wark:  Yes.  That is absolutely true.

 

331.          Mr Campbell QC:  What did you learn at the interview in substance about RMJM’s reputation?

 

332.          Ms Wark:  Remember that RMJM had also been an original submission.

 

333.          Mr Campbell QC:  Yes.  But not shortlisted.

 

334.          Ms Wark:  No.  So I had certainly read this, and I knew something of RMJM’s work, obviously through Victoria Quay.  So in that sense that is why I thought that it was a good tie-up. 

 

335.          Mr Campbell QC:  But just, if you like, to be pedantic, Victoria Quay is a very different kind of building from what was in contemplation here.

 

336.          Ms Wark:  Yes, but, as far as I recall, they had delivered that on time and on budget.  I mean, I think they were capable of seeing a big project through.  They were what I would call it, and, I say I am a layperson… it seemed to me that they had the engine capacity.

 

337.          Mr Campbell QC:  The engine capacity?

 

338.          Ms Wark:  Yes, the engine capacity to help Miralles visualise this project.

 

339.          Mr Campbell QC:  Let us move on.  Was there any discussion at this interview with any of the architects competing about how they proposed to bring their designs, their concepts, home within a budget?

 

340.          Ms Wark:  I do not think there was detailed discussion about how they would do it — the actual mechanics of how they would do that.

 

341.          Mr Campbell QC:  I will just show you quickly a report from DLE, the quantity surveyors.  It is JO/1/101.

 

342.          This is a heavily qualified report, because it has been prepared on a basis of indicative designs.  Page JO/1/107 just tells us on one page that DLE have calculated approximate areas not showing the basement and they make assessments of what they call

 

343. “the ideas contained in this submission”.

 

344.          So it is not a design, even in the most general sense.  You will see that the total of those figures is £62·6 million. 

 

345.          Now, in this range of submissions the indicative costs are from nearly £90 million to a much lower figure, £43 million, from one of the other entrants.  So there is a huge range of possibilities, Ms Wark.  I wonder whether in coming to a view about Miralles as the successful finalist, the panel took into account the DLE projections which were here in front of you.  How important was that?

 

346.          Ms Wark:  To be honest, only in part, because I think it was a very hard job for them to do, given that we were talking about design concept, not a building.  Also, what was evident from that was the identifiable area represents, for example, different submissions have an over-brief area size and under-brief area size radically.

 

347.          I did not take any comfort in this particularly.  I do not think it really helped me, particularly as a layperson, to get any further. 

 

348.          Can I just say one thing about this, and this is not relevant to what you are saying, but I do want to make this point?  Queensberry House — that figure there — again that was an estimate as well.  My understanding was that Queensberry House, of itself, that was not anything like that cost.

 

11.30 am

 

349.          Mr Campbell QC: No, because you had the Simpson & Brown report which would have shown a figure in the neighbourhood of £7 million I think.

 

350.          Ms Wark: It has just actually occurred to me — I never thought to question why it was in at that level.

 

351.          Lord Fraser: I think this is the first time a sort of fit-out figure has crept in to calculations as well.

 

352.          Ms Wark:  Yes. The fit-out worked, I mean —

 

353.          Lord Fraser:  This is specific items.

 

354.          Ms Wark:  The fit-out figure is the same in each — is it not the same in each one?

 

355.          Mr Campbell QC:  Yes.  The fit-out figure I think shows £53·5 million, sorry £5·3 million.  Get my decimal point in the right place — it may yet be £53·5 million.  More on that story later.

 

356.          What I was beginning to ask you was:  was there any discussion in the panel about the mechanism that would be used to actually procure the building, the type of contracting arrangements which would be used, and discussion, particularly with the candidates?

 

357.          Ms Wark:  Yes, well for a start the discussion with the candidates — were they happy with construction management as I think it was known.  I mean it was always my understanding it would be construction management, and that particularly was Joan O’Connor’s area of expertise.

 

358.          Mr Campbell QC: Yes. Do you know where you derived that understanding from?

 

359.          Ms Wark:  No.  It was discussed at various times.  It was almost by osmosis.  It was just understood that that would let things start quite quickly.

 

360.          Mr Campbell QC:  So you had an understanding as a lay panel member that construction management technique would be used, whatever that meant, and that would allow an early start?

 

361.          Ms Wark:  Yes.  Exactly.

 

362.          Mr Campbell QC:  Yes.  Which perhaps suggests that time was, to some extent, of the essence?

 

363.          Ms Wark:  I think time was definitely an issue.

 

364.          Mr Campbell QC:  Yes.  For Donald Dewar in particular?

 

365.          Ms Wark:  Well, I mean, certainly for him.  For me it was not an issue in any formal way; I just wanted to see a great building for Scotland as quickly as possible, but I did not have any imperative, a political imperative, I do not really need it.

 

366.          Mr Campbell QC:  No, clearly not.  I mean you hardly could as a broadcaster, could you?

 

367.          Ms Wark:  No.

 

368.          Mr Campbell QC: But for Donald Dewar, was there a political imperative about time?

 

369.          Ms Wark:  I think that he thought, and I suspect that what the thought was that, in a sense, it would help devolution to become embedded.

 

370.          Lord Fraser:  Do you remember Joan O’Connor?  She gave us some evidence yesterday that she thought the original date of completion by September 2001, she indicated that she put question marks against that and may have raised it with the rest of the panel.

 

371.          Ms Wark:  Yes. I mean she may have raised it, and I suppose I did not have the professional expertise to counter that.

 

372.          Lord Fraser:  I think that stemmed not so much from her architectural background, but from her —

 

373.          Ms Wark:  Construction management —

 

374.          Lord Fraser:  Parallel experience in construction.

 

375.          Mr Campbell QC:  Moving then to the end of the final interviews, what process did you adopt as a panel to choose a winner?

 

376.          Ms Wark:  It was detailed discussion which produced a winner, and I think at that stage we ranked them down from one to five.  And the conversation was detailed, but we were all of a mind about Miralles.  And in a sense, although the other architects had produced in varying degrees their schemes, some much more detailed than others, and one in particular, incredibly detailed — it was not really a conceptual scheme, it was a building — it was clear to us that the way that Miralles, and I do not know if you want to revisit the whole idea of what was discussed at that meeting, but the way that he related the building to the Crags and into Edinburgh — and I knew this area very well because I had lived in the Canongate for many years during one stage — the way that he had related that, and the way that he had been incredibly sympathetic in his relationship with Holyrood, and indeed with Queensberry House, led us to believe that it would be the most winning, in all ways, design.

 

377.          Mr Campbell QC: Was that a unanimous view at the end of the day?

 

378.          Ms Wark:  It was a unanimous view.

 

379.          Mr Campbell QC:  Was there any strong demurring view which came round?

 

380.          Ms Wark:  No.  It actually had been a consensual discussion; a very positive one.

 

381.          Mr Campbell QC:  You said you ranked the competitors then one to five.  Why did you have to do that, if you had chosen a winner?

 

382.          Ms Wark:  The knowledge I have is we had to do that because there were fee considerations.

 

383.          Mr Campbell QC:  Right. I am coming on to ask you about that.

 

384.          Ms Wark:  But also, something else might have happened, you know, and perhaps, you know, anything could have happened, and indeed, terrible things did happen eventually, but anything might have happened to any of the architects, and presumably we wanted to make sure that we had somebody that we could then move on to.

 

385.          Mr Campbell QC:  OK.  In relation to fees, what process was adopted for considering the fee submissions of the five finalists?

 

386.          Ms Wark:  My understanding was that they put their submissions in an envelope and then the first one was opened by John Gibbons, I would think.

 

387.          Mr Campbell QC:  While you were meeting as a panel or later?

 

388.          Ms Wark:  No.  Afterwards.

 

389.          Mr Campbell QC:  So you, as panel members, did not get a chance to consider the competing fee submissions of the finalists?

 

390.          Ms Wark:  No.  In fact, they were never competing in that sense.

 

391.          Mr Campbell QC:  Well, can I just be boring and take you back, please, to SE/3/018 ?  Now that is the front page of a draft of what is called the OJEC notice, which is a notice in the Official Journal of the European Community, as it was then.  And it sets out the parameters for the competition, if you just take that from me.  I think you probably saw it.

 

392.          Ms Wark:  I have seen it, yes.  I saw it at the time.

 

393.          Mr Campbell QC:  You saw it.  Look at the last page please, SE/3/020.  And you will see that under 14 the “award criteria”, which means the award of the contract:

 

394. “(other than price)  Economically most advantageous tender, relevant experience and design ability.”

 

395.          Now, can I suggest to you perhaps that, without knowledge of the competing fee rates, it is difficult for a panel to make a decision about the economically most advantageous tender?

 

396.          Ms Wark:  That is certainly the case, but there was no way that we were making a decision on economically the most advantageous tender; you would have ended up with a shed.

 

397.          Mr Campbell QC:  Why so?

 

398.          Ms Wark:  Because, that was not what it was about.  It was getting a building which was the most exciting, innovative building — a modern building — so therefore the most advantageous tender as the very, very first thing you were looking at is not right.  I mean all three taken together, the design ability, relative experience, fine; but we would never have begun simply with the most… I mean you would not have gone through all that process to rely on envelopes.

 

399.          Mr Campbell QC:   Well, I just ask because I was not there, and you were.

 

400.          Ms Wark:  Yes.

 

401.          Mr Campbell QC:  To sum this up, you did not take part in the process of opening the fee submissions, as panel members?

 

402.          Ms Wark:  No, but the point about their not competing is that I do not think there was ever any element of competition in the fees.  I think only the first one was to be opened.

 

403.          Mr Campbell QC:  So you were not alive to a competition on the fee cost of the winner as compared, for example, with the second or third in the ranking.

 

404.          Ms Wark:  No.

 

405.          Mr Campbell QC:  That is no, is it?

 

406.          Ms Wark:  Yes — no, absolutely.  I think the fee costs themselves —

 

407.          Mr Campbell QC:  I am sorry, we must do this for the transcript.

 

408.          Ms Wark:  Yes.

 

409.          Mr Campbell QC:  Can I ask the question again? Were you alive to the need for an assessment of the candidates on the basis of their competing fee submissions?

 

410.          Ms Wark:  Not competing, no.  What we were doing, we were choosing the best architect for the job, and providing that fee tender fell within a pre-arranged area, that was the end of it, as far as I understood.

 

411.          Mr Campbell QC:  Within a range?

 

412.          Ms Wark:  Yes.

 

413.          Mr Campbell QC:  That is what you understood?

 

414.          Ms Wark:  That is what I understood.

 

415.          Mr Campbell QC:  Right.  But you did not take part in the process of opening the Miralles envelope once he was declared to be the winner?

 

416.          Ms Wark:  No.

 

417.          Mr Campbell QC:  Is that right?

 

418.          Ms Wark:  That is absolutely right.

 

419.          Mr Campbell QC:  Right.  Did you remember Dr Gibbons discussing with the panel, including the Secretary of State, the need to go through the process of ranking, and the need to open the fee submissions?

 

420.          Ms Wark:  For the reason I gave you originally, I think that would be the case for the need to make sure that if the fee tender of the winning architect was outwith the boundaries, then they would have to go on to the next one.  I think that is why it was discussed, but also for the reason I also gave that if anything had happened to the architect then we had to have somebody else, and therefore it was very important who the second person was to be.

 

421.          Mr Campbell QC:  Yes.  My question was whether you remember that being discussed in front of the Secretary of State?

 

422.          Ms Wark:  Yes.

 

423.          Mr Campbell QC:  And do you remember any response that he may have given?

 

424.          Ms Wark:  No.  No, I do not.  And I do not think there was any specific comment from him.

 

425.          Mr Campbell QC:  OK.  I just have one other matter, thank you.  I will show you the hard copy.  It is RI/1/001 , and this is an architectural competitions handbook produced by the RIBA.

 

426.          Ms Wark:  Yes.

 

427.          Mr Campbell QC:  You are obviously just seeing the front page of it there.

 

428.          Ms Wark:  Yes.

 

429.          Mr Campbell QC:  And it sets out a series of rules for architectural competitions.

 

430.          Ms Wark:  Yes.

 

431.          Mr Campbell QC:  Can you recall whether this was provided to you as panel members?

 

432.          Ms Wark:  I do not think it was.

 

433.          Mr Campbell QC:  Ms Wark, thank you.  You have been most helpful, I am much obliged.

 

434.          Ms Wark:  Pleasure.

 

435.          Lord Fraser:  Just one matter I really want to ask of you.  We have seen some earlier minutes that are circulating within the Scottish Office, so they would not be known to you.  And there is some discussion about the make-up of the designer selection panel of which you eventually became a member.  And there is quite a lot of discussion about the Scottish Office controlling it or making sure it was not out-voted.  Did you ever experience any sense that you were being directed to a conclusion, or that there was a majority on the panel that could out-vote you as a lay person on it with the other two architects?

 

436.          Ms Wark:  Absolutely not, and in fact I think, I certainly speak for myself, but I think I can also speak for Andy MacMillan and Joan O’Connor, to say that if there had been any whiff of that, we would have been extremely angry.  We understood that it was absolutely an open competition.  I am very surprised about that.

 

437.          Lord Fraser:  Yes.  I do not think we quite understand what was being suggested in that.

 

438.          Ms Wark:  Were you suggesting that the Secretary of State might have a casting vote, because there was three and three?

 

439.          Lord Fraser:  Yes.  Well, I think at one time there was a discussion about whether there should be six or seven on the panel.

 

440.          Ms Wark:  Ah ha.

 

441.          Lord Fraser:  And the discussion was whether, if there was seven, whether it should be four who might be described as Scottish Office persons.  But at the end of the day, we know there were six only on the panel, and at least three outsiders had pretty determined views of their own, who were capable of having determined views of their own.

 

442.          As it turned out, the relationship of having a designer architect of international reputation allied with a major Scottish firm of architects would seem to be one that satisfied two objectives.  One: you could establish that the modern Scotland was outward looking by having an international architect giving you the conceptual thinking, but the major executive work could be done in Scotland, thus satisfying the need or the desire to keep some of the work in Scotland.  Did you ever feel under any pressure to come to a conclusion that met both of these objectives?

 

443.          Ms Wark:  No, absolutely not.  And, indeed, the architectural profession, as much as I know, does not work like that.  We were under no pressure to produce an architect of a certain nationality; in fact, I think that would have been the wrong thing to have done.  And architects work all over the world; Scottish architects work all over the world, and therefore, I would be surprised if any self-respecting architect would insist that a building should be built by an architect of one particular nationality.

 

444.          Lord Fraser:  Yes.  I think you appreciate that I am not necessarily indicating these conclusions are my views, but they are observations that have been made, either externally or in this Inquiry, and I think it is only fair as a member of the panel, to put this to you, just to —

 

445.          Ms Wark:  No, there was no pressure whatsoever, either way.

 

446.          Lord Fraser:  Either way.  But certainly the idea was, as I understand it from your evidence, that there was a very clear purpose from the outset that this was to be a competition open to all?

 

447.          Ms Wark:  Yes.  Well, for a start, architects were earning the chance to design the most modern Parliament in the world, and there was also a great deal of excitement around Scotland, and there were lots of articles abroad about devolution and so forth, so therefore you had architects with the stature, for example, of Richard Meier — very, very keen to be part of this competition.

 

448.          Lord Fraser:  Yes.

 

449.          Ms Wark:  There was a sense in which architects from all over the world felt that it would add, frankly, to their CV to have designed a Parliament.

 

450.          Lord Fraser:  And it was in that spirit that —

 

451.          Ms Wark:  And it was in that spirit that the competition took place.

 

452.          Lord Fraser:  Thank you very much, Ms Wark.

 

453.          Ms Wark:  Pleasure.

 

454.          Lord Fraser:  There are other matters which I think you are aware of, which we have agreed that we would not raise today, and we hope we will settle them without the necessity of a further appearance by you or anyone else, but we may have to invite you back at some time in the future.

 

455.          Ms Wark:  That would be fine.

 

456.          Lord Fraser:  Thank you very much.

 

457.          Mr Campbell QC:  Thank you. Can we take a short break?

 

Informal break at 11.45 am Hearing resumed at 12.15 pm.

 

458.          Mr Campbell QC:  Sir, thank you for the adjournment, during which there was an opportunity to discuss some programming and other matters.  I am much obliged; I am sorry it has taken a little longer than necessary.

 

459.          The next witness for the Inquiry is Mr Laurence Bain.  Mr Bain, good morning.

 

460.          Mr Laurence Bain (Bain Bevington Architects Ltd):  Good morning.

 

461.          Mr Campbell QC:  And thank you for coming to the Inquiry; I am very grateful.  Could you please introduce yourself and tell us who you are?

 

462.          Mr Bain:  I am Laurence Bain.  I was the Director responsible for our competition entry for the Scottish Parliament when my office was known as Michael Wilford and Partners Ltd.  My office was founded as James Stirling, Michael Wilford and Partners Ltd.  It changed name when Sir James Stirling died, and it subsequently changed name again to Bain Bevington Architects Ltd. 

 

463.          Mr Campbell QC:  So it is presently called Bain Bevington?

 

464.          Mr Bain:  Architects Ltd, yes.

 

465.          Mr Campbell QC:  Where does it have its seat of administration?

 

466.          Mr Bain:  In London.

 

467.          Mr Campbell QC:  In London.  Thank you.

 

468.          So as Michael Wilford and Partners Ltd the firm made a submission to the competition for the Scottish Parliament building, is that right, in 1998? 

 

469.          Mr Bain:  That is correct.  We responded to the project advert, which was also published in ‘The Architects’ Journal’ and other magazines at the time and requested the pre-qualifying questionnaire [PQQ] from the Scottish Office, which we then completed and sent off. 

 

470.          Mr Campbell QC:  Thank you.

 

471.          Was that pre-qualifying questionnaire accompanied by anything other than the information contained in it — any documents, any photographs, any plans, any graphics?

 

472.          Mr Bain:  I think there were photographs of relevant projects included, but I am not entirely sure about that.  I was mainly responsible for making sure that the person in the office put together the right sort of answers to all the questions, and we then — if there were illustrations to accompany it, we would have attached them. 

 

473.          Mr Campbell QC:  Is SE/3/018 the OJEC to which you responded?

 

474.          Mr Bain:  Yes.

 

475.          Mr Campbell QC:  And can you see there that, under two, the categories of service and description which are required for a project of approximately £50 million, and extending to approximately 17,000 square metres. 

 

476.          Mr Bain:  Correct.

 

477.          Mr Campbell QC:  On the second page (SE/3/019), Mr Bain, could you look please at item 7?  Can you tell me if you can recall reaching any understanding about the meaning of item 7?

 

478.          Mr Bain:  This clause, I think, appeared in quite a lot of OJEC notices at the time.  It would basically mean that you had to respond to all of the points, and you could not submit additional documentation that varied from the criteria set in the advert.

 

479.          Mr Campbell QC:  So, if we look at paragraph 13 on this page.  There is a set of criteria there for completion of the PQQ.  Is that what you are referring to?

 

480.          Mr Bain:  Yes. 

 

481.          Mr Campbell QC:  So these are not, I think, essentially, criteria for the design of the Parliament; they are more mundane technical information about the practices making a submission. 

 

482.          Mr Bain:  Yes, and they are fairly standard in terms of adverts that ‘The European Journal’ were printing at those times.  They were tried and tested points about professional indemnity insurance, relevant skills, qualified staff, et cetera.  And architects would look at that and would assess whether they could make the criteria, and if they could and wanted to do the project they would then of course apply.

 

483.          Mr Campbell QC:  If I am understanding this correctly, all that we get in relation to the proposed building for which a designer is being sought, is what we find in paragraph 2 on page SE/3/018 which we saw earlier.  Is that correct?

 

484.          Mr Bain:  Yes.

 

485.