►
Description
Published by the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body.
www.parliament.scot // We do not facilitate discussions on our YouTube page but encourage you to share and comment on our videos on your own channels. // If you would like to join in our conversations please follow @ScotParl on Twitter or like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/scottishparliament
A
Thank
you
very
much
for
coming
to
give
evidence
to
us
today
and
we
have
two
panels
today,
so
we're
very,
very
pushed
for
a
time.
So
if
I
could
ask-
and
you
can
see,
we've
got
quite
a
few
members.
So
if
I
could
ask
for
questions
and
answers
to
be
a
synth
as
possible
and
then
I
don't
want
to
introduce
interrupt
people,
but
there
if
I
feel
that
you,
you
know
like
you,
should
be
concluding
our
and
we've
my
pain
and
that's
the
polite
way
of
thing.
A
We
should
move
on
so
I'd
like
to
maybe
start
with
an
opening
question
like
you.
Both
of
us
had
the
opportunity
to
listen
to
the
evidence
from
Glasgow
School
of
Art
and
their
architects
and
contractors,
and
in
previous
evidence
sessions
and
a
lot
of
our
lines
of
questioning,
revolved
around
a
the
compartment
ation
of
the
building
and
the
existence
of
voids
in
the
building
which
the
fire
investigation
after
the
2014
fire
showed
had
accelerated
to
the
fire,
and
we've
received
evidence
that
these
voids
were
pointed
out
to
the
art
school
by
I.
A
Believe
it
was
chaired
the
fire
expert
when
he
toured
the
building
with
Historic
Scotland
I
think
as
long
ago
as
1997,
and
it
was
they
were
also
Highway
in
the
bottle.
Happold
report
around
2006
and,
however,
when
we
spoke
to
the
architects
pigeon
park,
it
was
clearly
even
after
the
first
fire
during
the
conservation,
those
those
dots
and
the
shafts
had
not
been
blocked
and
I
wanted
to.
B
At
the
moment,
the
start
reposition,
and
that
is
that
and
a
fire
risk
assessment
has
to
be
done.
But
the
focus
of
that
assessment
I
mean
you
look
at
his
own
life.
Safety
is
on
getting
closer
to
the
building
in
time
and
it's
not
on
asset
safety.
It's
not
on
protecting
the
building,
so
I
would
suggest
you
that
it
is
the
committee
looking
at
changes
to
requirements
and
fire
safety
assessments
during
the
construction
period
to
also
take
into
account
fire
asset
safety
and
fire
spread
through
the
building.
It's
not
easy
to
do.
B
If
you
might
and
I
think
the
key
representative
said
those
talks
were
going
to
be
used
for
services
distribution,
in
other
words,
there's
going
to
be
cable
types
put
in
them
during
the
course
of
the
works.
So
therefore,
a
fire
stopping
during
construction
is
not
an
easy
thing
because
it
might
continually
be
disrupted
and
have
to
be
put
back
into
place,
but
I
would
suggest
you.
There
hasn't
been
enough
focus
on
achieving
compartment.
A
shin
fire
stopping
during
the
construction
process
will.
A
You
see
some
quite
contradictory
comments
that
you're
quite
right
that
needed
talk
about
pitting
pitting
services
through
the
the
dots,
but
he
also
talks
about
conservation
aspects
as
well.
Obviously
they
were
of
channels
really
Macintosh
dots
and
they
were
integral
to
the
building
and
the
earliest
stage
in
the
bottle
Happel
report
they
also
mentioned
there
would
be
just
too
expensive
to
do
the
the
extent
of
fire
stopping
required
and
was
that
an
issue
and
in
terms
of
the
conservation-
and
you
know,
as
other
issues
around
the
conservation
rules
that
stop
us
making.
B
That
was
very
least
the
process
had
gone
through
of
seeing
what
was
involved
and
doing
it
and
therefore
would
have
a
detrimental
effect
on
the
Heritage
is
building
whether
or
not
that
chorus,
Farzin
being
put
to
storage
environment,
for
instance
and
discussed
it
didn't
seem,
so
it
seemed
it
was
ruled
out
very
early
on
and
I
mean
just,
but
it
is
important
to
put
this
in
records
that
none
of
this
is
easy
to
do
these.
You
know
every
historic
building
is
unique.
A
lot
of
these
ducts
and
things
will
be
going
through.
B
The
building
will
be
not
recorded
and
drawings
will
be.
You
know
finding
their
way
inside
thick,
solid
walls,
so
even
finding
the
roots
of
all
the
voids
can
be
a
difficult
thing
to
do,
and
sometimes
because
it's
difficult
to
therefore
becomes
expensive
and
therefore
gets
ignored
as
part
of
it.
So
I
would
suggest
it.
The
process
goes
right.
B
The
way
back
to
the
original
and
survey
stages
to
assessment
stages,
to
doing
response
point
of
the
design
stage
and,
following
that
up
with
a
strategy
into
the
construction
stage,
and
but
it
is,
it
is
I-
think
the
in
many
historic
fires
that
is
the
interconnecting
voids
through
the
building
become
the
sources
of
the
fire
rate
is
not
just
in
the
Macintosh
school.
That's
that's
shown
up
another
powers,
gonna
start
Billings
as
well,
so.
C
D
Agree
with
there
Dawson's
points
and
its
entirety,
I
would
like
to
add
that,
having
looked
at
the
evidence,
bundle
I
thank
the
committee
for
dispensation
to
continue
completion
of
a
written
response.
Governor
time
frames
of
man,
white
till
today
was
only
two
weeks
passed
over
the
holidays
and
also
the
complex's
of
the
keys
I
am
concerned
and
for
the
record
not
so
much
over
what
has
been
disclosed
but
what
hasn't
been
disclosed
and
for
the
public
record
I'm
aware
that
Julian
glass
erskyll
are
and
sorry.
D
Okay,
myself
during
the
1999
allocation
design
lighthouse
project
in
McIntosh
building,
there
was
a
number
of
site-based
files.
I
was
an
on-site
engineer
there,
an
intervenor
on
at
least
two
with
first
aid
firefighting
equipment,
and
there
was
one
significant
cladding
fire
and
the
person
that
did.
That
was
the
semester,
unauthorized
watson
actions.
D
You
know,
because
of
the
complexity
of
these
hearings,
that
there
is
maybe
keys
for
a
public
inquiry
to
look
at
the
issues.
Look
at
the
way,
the
context
and
then
aim
instigate
the
civil
service
worth
dialogue
with
the
fire
fire
sector
and
conservation
sector
as
to
where
we
go
next
and
it's
in
the
back
drop
off
their
ongoing.
A
Scottish
burn
stannis
with
you
coming
back
to
construction
fees
and
I
did
what
with
Bureau
half
walls
but
not
on
the
Glasgow
scale,
our
rescue
science
of
May,
the
fill
in
transparent.
D
This
fluid
off
any
conflicts,
interests
and
ears
or
security
aspects
which,
which
I'm
subjected
to
for
as
a
professional
and
ethical
father,
engineer
I,
do
use
the
degree
of
latitude
in
the
public
interest
so
I'm
concerned
about
the
recent
reports
in
the
press
about
clear
constructions.
Fear
to
disclose
the
construction
phase
bond
plans,
some
of
the
fears
the
glue
disclose
certain
aspects.
D
I
am
also
for
the
public
record
stating
of
had
say
of
but
Veloster
him
there
to
keep
in
confidence
the
source
of
a
report
from
the
HSC
in
2015,
which
issued
an
adverse
notes
of
deficiency
on
the
GSA
site.
But
I
must
note
the
record
it
was
before
Kearse
appointment.
So
our
suggestions
that
need
for
additional
detail
of
understanding
of
what
the
role
and
responsibility
was
for
the
three
contractors
identified
in
the
evidence,
bundle
and
why
that
notes?
A
deficiency
given
the
two
cases
in
the
two
case
virus
has
not
been
disclosed.
It.
A
D
It's
into
fashion
see
under
the
construction,
design
and
management
regulations.
We
were
in
fact
it's
easier
to
go
back
a
little
bit
under
the
case
report
in
1997.
We'll
get
three
strands
of
Health
fire
safety
in
building
standards.
One
is
there
with
local
authority
bone
controls
under
Building
Standards
one
is
Dale
Worth
hair
from
safety,
executive
and
construction
standards
and
ones
there
was
the
specialist
knowledge
needed
for
fire
safety
standards.
More
recent
legislation
is
the
construction
design,
moderate
regulation
in
2007
2015,
which
requires
construction
phase.
D
Fire
safety
and
construction
phase
plans
there
a
formal
start
requirement
and
we've
got
the
parallel
requirement
for
fire
safety
and
risk
assessments
on
the
client
side.
Nor
the
contractor
side,
the
HSE
knows
the
deficiency.
They
were
either
called
in
I'm,
not
sure
about
the
grounds
for
the
inspection,
but
the
conduct,
an
inspection
on
site,
a
house
in
the
original
emails
and
correspondence
the
are
available
in
the
public
domain.
So
don't
see
any
reason
for
them
not
being
disclosed
publicly.
D
You
can
get
them
through
an
FOI
and
within
twenty
one
or
twenty
eight
days
and
this
I
entered
then
what
they
do
specifically
raised.
Concerns
about
fire
safety,
on
the
GSC
site,
from
2014
to
2015
deficiencies
and
the
means
of
warning,
and
so
many
firefighting
provisions
and
from
another
sector
contact
fall
in
the
2018,
far
I
believe.
But
it's
unsubstantiated.
The
kir
construction
was
upgrading
their
own
site,
a
means
of
fire
detection
and
warning
from
a
manual
system
to
an
automatic
system,
but
I
don't
have
any
other
details
unavailable.
D
E
Thank
you
convener.
The
committee
has,
as
well
as
the
recent
fire
Pincus
that
are
in
the
2014
fire
and
some
of
the
decision-making
around
how
we
came
to
that
the
mist
suppression
system,
the
evidence
that
we've
heard
for
the
decision
taken
to
go
ahead
with
that
fire
prevention
system
to
be
installed
suggests
that
there
was
no
other
options.
They
were
quite
limited
in
terms
of
design
of
the
Beldon
that
that
was
from
the
evidence
we
had
from
Glasgow
School
of
Art
that
this
was
the
really.
E
D
And
I
think
those
major
concerns
about
the
ambiguity
all
for
the
status
of
the
proposed
fire
suppression
works
prior
to
2014
file
on
during
the
what's
following
the
two
thing
up
to
2018
far
the
water,
the
fire
suppression,
water
mass
system
is
the
contemporary
system
to
be
installed,
especially
in
historic
buildings,
the
use
less
water
of
the
less
damaging
it
provide
an
equal
level
of
cover
to
more
traditional
Whitby
sprinkler
systems.
I
do
categorically
a
question
the
position.
D
It
was
the
only
system
what
we
see
in
historic
builds
and
we
refer
to
the
National
Naval
Museum
archives.
We
have
a
water-base
suppression
system,
we
also
forgive
suppression
and
the
unoccupied
archive
areas
because
they
are
less
damaging.
They
don't
use
water
and
it's
easy
to
recover.
So
we
have
a
mixed
mode
system.
I.
Also
question
the
fact
about
the
time
frames
of
the
implementation
of
the
suppression
system
for
2014
are
not
buying
the
argument.
D
There
is
a
space
dose
if
it's
buildings
constructed
before
2000
and
you're
required
to
have
an
asbestos
plan,
and
you
can
anticipate
where
there
is
and
you
can
employ
specialist
contractors.
They
can
work
in
a
special
control,
the
areas
I
care
to
guard
who
dispute
their
possession.
There
was
a
number
of
her
owners,
possessions
and
statements
that
won't
stand
up
desk
well
interrogation
and
I'm
going
and
placed
upon
the
hearing
to
recommend
a
field:
forensic
nomination
coming
back
to
strengthen
systems
not
to
label
the
point.
D
I
do
also
creation
point:
they
didn't
have
fees,
the
installation
given
the
building
and
it's
an
original
design.
I'm
construction
was
in
two
phases.
The
Builder
lends
itself
to
the
undamaged
wing
plus
the
damaged
wing,
been
treated
as
two
separate
entities
and
linked
back
to
the
new
tank
areas.
I
don't
buy
it
on
the
lead
time,
so
don't
buy
it
on
bringing
in
pumps
it's
towards
the
end
of
the
project,
verses
earlier
and
I.
D
Don't
understand
why
there
wasn't
MP
arrangements
to
end
not
building
white,
because
that's
quite
challenging
cost
prohibitive,
but
at
least
around
the
boundary
of
the
damaged
area
to
compensate
for
the
compartment
ation
issues,
strengthen
suppression
compensates
for
other
deficiencies,
predominately
compartment,
eëtion,
and
that's
why
it's
so
important
to
have
the
guidance,
the
statute
requirement
and
the
education
of
clients
with
historic
buildings.
Thank
you.
B
Focus
on
the
last
point
that
stem
Steve
is
Megan
there,
which
is
about,
if,
like
the
compensation
of
suppression
systems
for
lack
of
compartment
ation
to
me
reading
the
reports,
they
come
to
a
conclusion
that
it
was
the
only
possible
way,
even
in
2014,
when
a
lot
of
the
building
was
intact
and
seems
to
be
to
be
a
jump
and
I.
Don't
know
whether
that
was
taking
up
with
historic
environments.
B
Cotton
at
the
time,
the
the
reason
given
for
not
providing
compensation
seem
to
be
concerned
about
disruption
to
historic
fabric
and
so
I
to
many
I.
Think
I
think
that
how
far
that
was,
investigators,
I
think
should
be
challenged
because
to
immediately
jump
to
say
you
can't
put
in
compartment
ation
because
of
just
shopping
to
start
fabric.
D
Add
what
we're
trying
to
do
as
professional
father
engineers
looking
at
the
whole
project
and
the
end
point?
We
start
with
the
end
point
what
we're
trying
to
achieve
in
terms
of
rush
adoption,
protection,
historic
assets,
etc,
and
what
we
can
do
is
actually
in
build
the
fire,
dampers,
the
pipe
runs
and
the
engineers
and
openings
that
we
can
run
cables
and
pipe
walk
through.
So
you've
actually
got
everything
built
in
there
at
an
early
stage,
the
compensate
for
the
thickness
of
compartment,
ation
and
and
form
the
compartment
lanes
ways.
D
We
also
appear
in
the
fire
suppression
system,
which
gives
you
an
actual
level
of
safety
not
only
for
life
safety,
but
for
property
protection.
It's
the
way
to
go
through,
and
we
actually
like
behind
a
North
America
and
the
adoption
of
suppression
based
systems
and
holistic
historic
bill
protecting
and
modern
and
contemporary
fire
engineered
solutions.
B
As
well,
it
is
this
issue
of
the
the
asset,
historic
building
asset,
being
given
importance
when
it
comes
to
doing
a
fire
risk
assessment
without
that
is
lacking,
I
would
say
in
the
guidance
and
legislation
in
particular
at
the
moment,
and
that
and
the
focus
is
very
much
on
life
safety,
both
during
construction
and
even
when,
even
after
that
and
so
think,
it's
starting.
You
changed
the
mindset
to
think
about
using
fire
safety
measures
and
fire
safety
audits
to
long
term,
protect
historic
fabric.
B
E
Could
be
argued
that
because
the
art
colleges
are
working
art
college,
it's
you
mentioned
the
naval
museum
which,
which
is
a
museum.
It's
a
different
type.
One
of
the
arguments,
the
Glasgow
School
of
Art
of
put
forward
consistently
is
that
the
building
is
a
working
art
college
and
that
is
important
to
the
building
as
the
maintaining
the
historic
fabric
and
the
importance
of
the
building
itself.
E
And
if
we
look
back
at
the
2014
fire
and
the
evidence
we
heard
from
the
college
is
that
it
was
the
fault
of
one
individual
student
and
that
student,
if
they
had
been
doing
what
they
were
told
to
do
at
the
fire
pit
that
happened.
Do
you
think
that's
a
reasonable
statement
and
just
think
that
sure
they're,
responsible
use
of
the
building.
B
And
I
know
I
mean
I
I.
Think.
The
idea
that
you
can
stop
fires
happening
in
buildings
is
is
fanciful,
really
I
would
say,
notice
the
autistics
just
parade
the
other
day
in
terms
of
the
numbers
of
construction
site
fires
going
up
and
reaching
two
years
and
one
of
the
sharpest
rises
and
that
was
actually
of
deliberately
started
fires.
So
it's
a
matter
of
many
precautions
you
put
in
and
in
terms
of
good
practice
in
terms
of
hot
works
or
electro
works
or
temporary
works.
B
We
have
to
accept
that
the
will
be
fires
in
buildings
and
even
deliberately
start
fires
and
buildings,
and
therefore
it's
not
possible
to
say
just
because
people
are
told
to
behave
in
a
particular
way.
That
means
there
won't
be
a
fire,
so
I
think
they
know
you
do
all
the
good
practice.
You
give
people
all
the
advice.
You
do
all
the
good
practice
in
terms
of
site
works
and
how
it
works,
and
everything
like
that,
but
you
still
have
to
assume
there
are
going
to
be
fires
in
Billings.
So.
D
Worked
in
art
generally,
what
can
complex
environments
such
as
hospitals,
universities,
historic
buildings
and
the
wide
range
we
can
actually
retrofitting
buildings
from
the
bestow
activin
use?
We
can
use
Nathan
Cruz
and
we
can
cruise.
We
even
do
that
for
a
space
removal
in
life
builders
we
can
park
it
you
all
smaller
compartments.
Do
the
removals
and
turn
around
overnight
to
have
improved
functionality.
We
also
have
a
and
period
of
holidays.
When
you
look
at
academic
sessions
and
as
a
past
academic,
we
only
really
teach
for
30
to
35
weeks
of
the
year.
D
We
can
use
those
other
weeks
to
retrofit
and
that's
what
we
do
either
the
same.
In
King's
College,
a
King's,
College
London,
managing
the
entire
property
portfolio,
the
summer
works,
the
building
works
and
half
million
pound
worth
of
capital
development,
and
if
you've
got
a
good
fire
engineer,
a
spear.
My
people
on
a
fire
engine
e'en
throughout
the
lifecycle
of
the
building
we
can
help
address.
The
client
I
do
question
that
the
client,
in
the
evidence,
bundle
hasn't
been
following
the
advice
of
the
enormity
competent
person,
which
is
a
major
point
from.
B
Noah's
that
point
I
suppose
I'm
working
for
the
University
of
Edinburgh
at
the
moment,
and
we
have,
for
the
last
number
of
years,
been
retrofitting
for
our
safety
measures
into
some
of
their
most
historic
buildings.
Why
the
buildings
are
in
use
or
during
holiday
times
or
things
it's
difficult
to
do,
and
those
circumvented
accounting
and
certain
amended
disruption.
But
it's
possible
to
do
it.
It's
not
impossible.
D
Combined
sort
of
you
know,
let's
cut
the
things
the
other
thing
is
dose
is
actually
correct.
The
main
thrust
of
our
legislation
today,
the
UK
and
Europe
in
the
developed
world,
is
lay
safety,
but
that
doesn't
remove
the
need
to
look
at
environmental
protection
protection
or
for
operational
firefighters,
entering
the
building
for
search
and
rescue
or
damage
control
or
for
any
other
person.
D
So
there
is
explicit
life
safety
provisions,
but
those
implicit
other
fire
safety
objectives
and
under
the
recipes
regimes,
know
you're
defective
if
you
do
not
consider
all
risks
and
just
look
at
life
safety.
Therefore,
the
needs
to
be
a
reinforcer
within
a
legislation
where
it's
historic
building
protection,
but
it's
the
mean
building
standards,
review
that
dr.
paul
styles
doing
following
their
the
grain
field,
terrified
an
ongoing
Hockett
of
you-
and
there
are
we
used
to
do
it.
D
We
can
integrate
e
integrated
safety
and
resilient
standard
systems,
operation,
guidance,
etc,
and
we
also
need
to
tip
make
a
decision
about.
Are
we
prepared
to
lose
historic
and
cultural
assets
or
tis
on
more?
We
can
do
and
we've
got
a
lot
of
evidence
coming
out
of
America
on
how
they
actually
do
that's
miss
dawning,
and
it
does
a
lot
of
work
on,
and
conservation
I
dislike
the
term
accident.
We
don't
use
that
anymore.
D
If
you
look
at
the
connotation
of
a
road
traffic
accident,
we
don't
use
that
sort
of
traffic
instant,
because
the
the
reason
we
don't
like
the
use
of
accident
it
suggests
there's
no
apportion
of
plane,
I
blame
or
failure
where
dies.
Although
the
student
may
have
not
fall
apart
in
direction,
there's
also
a
supervision
failure.
Therefore,
we
call
it
an
incident
which
is
not
to
be
speculated
on,
as
Moscone
objected
to.
What
we
do
is
a
politic
created
Kellerman
investigator,
as
we
generate
hypotheses
for
evidencing
and
testing
from
the
documentary.
D
The
human
witness
statements,
the
CCTV
or
the
physical
on
site
for
investigation
evidence
their
father
some
possessions.
They
are
quite
significant
ones
that
need
to
be
corrected
and
I'm
also
concerned
about
some
of
their
apparent
errors
and
omissions
in
a
role
innocent
on
misleading
statements.
They
came
out
of
the
evidence
sessions
today.
That's
why
I
believe
it
needs
an
appointed
either
Task
Group
under
a
chair
and
a
number
of
experts,
because
the
experts
can
agree
disagree.
You
can
also
see
something
else.
D
F
Can
I
just
carry
on
with
clear
Baker's
line
of
questioning,
as
we
understand
on
the
mister
suppression
system,
as
we
understand
it,
the
system
that
went
in
before
the
fire
in
2014
largely
survived
that
that
fire
and
then
was
ripped
out.
Can
you
offer
any
thoughts
as
to
why
it
would
have
been
a
good
idea
to
have
ripped
that
out
and
do
you
think
if
it
had
stayed
in
it,
might
have
helped
to
alleviate
the
worst
impact
of
the
subsequent
fire
I.
D
Think
without
actually
speculate,
we
don't
have
enough
evidence
just
know,
but
what
we
can
see
is
Mackintosh
was
actually
innovative.
A
nice
design
and
use
of
modern
technology
and
materials
wrinkles
have
been
around
since
the
1800s
are
not
new
technology.
Part
of
the
problem
is
and
historic
buildings
unless
we
have
a
change
or
occupancy
and
on
material
alteration.
The
building,
which
then
excludes
like
the
light
changes.
We
don't
need
to
have
new
bone
walls
and
we
don't
need
help
greater
a
existence
to
come.
Standards
is
deemed
to
satisfy
to
the
standards.
F
Simply
reflects
the
evidence
that
bill
gave
gave
to
to
the
committee
which
which,
which
relates
to
the
mist
suppression
system
being
removed,
and
the
committee
wasn't
told
it
was
removed
after
the
first
fire
and
I
guess,
they're
all
puzzled
as
to
why.
Why
would
remove
a
system
that
was
as
I
understand
it
even
understanding
it
survived
that
first
fire
and
therefore
presumably
could
have
played
a
role
I.
F
D
I've
stated
there
should
have
been
a
temporary
or
feast
installation
and
actually
the
form
part
of
that
basis.
Therefore,
I'm
creatively
puzzled
to
know
here
and
without
having
time
to
I
think
leader
Jason,
it's
Blondo
and
it's
in
my
nature,
and
that
this
is
the
card
and
darts
of
patella
line
equation.
It's
a
lesson
slammed
option
pretty.
D
F
And
the
other,
the
other
point
about
and
you'll
understand
all
this
technical
stuff
when
I
will
not,
but
the
the
the
evidence
today
again
sites
the
joint
fire
code.
You'll
be
familiar
with
joint
fire
cause.
I
and
I
will
not
read
a
court
because
you
will
know
it
off
by
heart
and
I
kind
of
thing,
but
as
far
as
I
can
see,
it
says
that
the
system,
the
the
high
pressure
mist
suppression
system,
could
have
been
activated
during
the
Kia
works,
commencing
or
nate's
of
August
2016
protecting
the
Mac
building
during
construction.
B
Yes,
I
mean
I
would
I
suppose
I
would
say
that
it
is
my
experience
that
is
not
normal
to
have
fire
suppression
during
construction
in
this
country.
It's
much
more
normal
in
America
and
Canada
was
maybe
a
prevalence
of
timber
frame
buildings
and
things
more.
So
it's
not
a
normal
thing,
but
I
think
given
given
the
history
and
and
given
the
fact
that
this
there
was
a
system
there,
it
would
have
been.
You
would
have
thought
it
was
so
much
have
been
considered
yeah.
So.
F
F
D
This
nature
of
operations
fall
in
a
fire
and
another
investigation
I
think
it's
also
important
to
draw
the
committee's
attention
to,
although
it's
relatively
uncommon
isn't
unknown
turns
into
how
we
definitely
do
Feast
installations,
it's
an
automatic
given
up
building.
It's
not
a
no
interval
temporary
system
and
those
new
products
imagina
on
the
market,
all
the
time,
including
these
new
plug-and-play
personal-protection
water
mist
systems.
So
if
you've
got
a
socket,
we
can
install
a
tank
pump.
D
Detection
also
have
contained
or
developed
for
vulnerable
person
protection,
and
we
can
use
them
in
small
compartments,
although
they
haven't
been
tested
for
that
application.
There's
a
fire
engineer
now,
I'll
give
the
keys
and
the
damage
portion
put
the
Amen,
really
forget,
Hogwarts
and
remedial
walks
to
reduce
the
risk
within
the
building.
Okay.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Wait.
G
Much
give
you
know,
thank
you
committee,
for
they.
Let
me
come
along.
I
just
wanted
to
move
a
long
view
bet
to
their
climbing
in
installation
having
questions
previously
here,
construction.
After
much
probing,
it
was
discovered
that
the
same
type
of
cladding
measures
in
Greenville,
absolutely
the
same
so
I,
would
just
like
an
expert
opinion
on
that.
I
mean
it
supposed
to
be
this
space.
You
know
better
than
me,
incomplete
at
the
bottom
accession,
obviously
tender
there
as
well.
G
D
Having
spent
19
months
on
Granville
pro-bono
and
its
entirety,
yeah
I've
just
tweeted,
something
or
not,
because
it's
the
creation,
it
comes
up
time
and
time
and
time
again,
rockville.
Who
else
is
form
insulation
and
I've,
provided
that
I
made
the
statements
morning,
because
somebody
else
asked
me
and
the
reason
we
can
use
it,
because
it
appears
to
comply
with
the
tests
and
the
standards
at
the
time
of
construction.
However,
there
is
legal
precedence
through
other
cases
which
have
been
upheld
and
I
feel
very
cruel
in
my
phone,
but
I
won't
detract
same.
D
There
is
a
case
of
Shaba,
a
food
factory
down
south,
where
the
architects
specified,
despite
repeated
warnings,
a
different
type
of
a
expanded
polystyrene
insulation.
During
a
high
risk
area,
they
were
found
to
be
deficient
and
grossly
negligent
for
not
following
other
advice
for
no
other
clear,
reducing
the
resource
and
no
other
way
considering
risks.
Although
the
court
appealed
that
reduce
the
damages
against
them
from
I
think
it
was
25
million
to
10
million,
the
company
went
bankrupt
to
zero
at
five
money,
payment
insurance
cover
and
as
a
big
to
be
in
the
Yuki
sector.
D
I'm
going
to
kill
it
today,
if
you
can
look
at
one
product
that
gives
you
marginal
benefit
thermal
performance,
but
not
necessarily
a
fit
form
and
solution
against
stone
rule,
which
is
the
same
performance
requirement,
might
be
slightly
thicker
to
achieve
the
same
performance,
it
is
safer,
it's
not
combustible.
This
is,
is
an
Australian
colleague
and
other
material
manufacturer
called
plastic
petrol.
H
D
Doesn't
ignite
under
the
tests
and
it
won't
ignite
in
most
instances
because
it's
get
a
concrete
slab.
It's
got
a
you
PVC
layer,
but
if
you
get
hot
works
on
a
sustained
ignition
through
a
fully
developed
fire,
it's
adding
to
the
fuel
load
and
I'm
a
factor
of
magnitudes
where
dies
rock
will
wouldn't
therefore,
I
find
as
an
expert
the
design
teams
Russia.
Now
it
complied
to
be
defective.
They
haven't
considered
the
risks
under
the
building
standards
under
the
construction,
design
and
management
regs
and
under
the
fire
Scotland
Act.
D
G
B
So
I
would
say
in
the
in
the
construction
industry.
There's
a
lot
of
confusion
around
the
performance
of
for
materials,
in
particular
in
the
composite
layers.
Yes,
where
you're
getting
there
so
a
layer
of
foam
buried
within
above
a
concrete
roof
or
a
fire
resistant
with
sitting
underneath
most
architects
would
not
think
that
that's
adding
to
the
fire
risk
of
the
building
if
it
is
and
the
evidence
is
coming
out
there.
It
is,
then,
that
is
certainly
something
that
needs
to
come
back
more
into
the
profession
in
terms
of
specifying
post
grandfa.
D
D
I
also
went
on
record
than
the
grain
field
to
be
that
the
potential
root
cause
in
:
cause
failure
of
grain
field,
+,
474
and
a
contributing
factor
in
Glasgow
scale
are
was
potentially
a
unknown
defect
and
the
advice
in
the
tests
and
the
compliance
routes
which
resulted
in
grand
film
is
474
dr.
post
all
up
during
the
the
heating,
the
evidence
iation
to
the
communities,
the
local
government
says,
should
fall
under
berlin
standards.
D
Farm
bone
standards
review
alluded
that
need
a
fairly
good
understanding
of
where
contractors,
designers
and
spacer
files
have
went
wrong,
and
it
is
alluded
that
if
we
have
the
fire
certificate,
the
FASTA,
defecation
and
accreditation
process
is
to
allow
us
to
make
rapid
decisions
that
that
has
been
tested
independently
and
it's
safe.
So
we've
got
in
numb
of
multiple
faster
problems.
Isn't
just
life
ceased
historic,
scotland,
it's
also
fundamental
building
standards
and
regimes.
Thank
you,
too.
C
You
convener
good
morning
panel
I
think
it's
probably
worth
just
taking
a
step
back
to
look
at
the
remit
of
what
we're
doing
here
or
not
here,
to
identify
the
cause
of
the
fire
or
apportion
blame
or
indeed
make
any
explicit
recommendations
and
changes
to
fire
regulations.
But
nonetheless,
a
lot
of
these
issues
are
coming
out
in
the
wash
mr.
Mackenzie
I,
fully
respect
that
you're
an
expert
in
this
field.
But
you
have
made
some
quite
broad
statements
this
morning.
D
There
are
significant
gaps,
arrows
and
voids,
and
the
retin
evidence
submission
in
the
bundle
I'm
giving
you
a
list
of
the
occupants
which
are
priority,
which
should
have
been
submitted.
The
fire
safety
plan,
the
construction
phase
plan,
the
arson
assessment
should
all
have
been
in
that
bundle
and
the
disclosures
of
enforcement
notices
on
northeast
efficiency
should
have
been
in
that
bundle.
They
did
not
appear
to
be
so
and
I
don't
understand
why?
D
Because,
even
if
we
go
active
and
ongoing
investigations
that
no
life
loss
or
injury
in
this
one,
it's
a
property
protection
or
starchy
feeling.
Therefore,
what
I
encourage
clients
and
it's
my
personal
opinion-
is
to
have
full
disclosure,
because
courts
are
now
starting
to
look
at
the
conduct
of
parties
and
we
can
have
sentencing
and
mitigation
through
early
emissions
of
guilt
through
the
sentencing
council
guidance.
D
We
have
a
100
option
if
you
plead
guilty
the
first
opportunity
that
tapers
off
with
each
opportunity
to
plead
guilty
and
if
you
ultimately
continued
to
plead
non,
not
guilty,
but
you
are
found.
The
penalties
can
be
harsher
if
you're
obstructive
frustrated
an
investigation
or
a
public
inquiry
or
public
hearing
then
or
combative
in
your
approach
to
it
or
fin
a
phone
to
fin
disclosure
we
actually
haven't.
D
Then
the
courts
will
rule
an
assign,
hard
harsher
penalties,
and
we
have
seen
that
under
fire
law
south
of
the
border
and
a
will
take
out
the
case,
priest
ins.
So
there
isn't.
Mr.
McCain.
Is
he
seeing
this?
It's
on
the
balance
of
what
I,
however,
haven't
seen
as
a
criminal
investigator
in
the
bundle
as
a
fire
expert
and
also
what
I've
seen
coming
through
the
courts
in
case
law.
Thank.
D
Okay
and
I
mean
I
think
sorry
just
add
one
very
important
factor.
It's
also
an
opportunity:
I'm
not
seeing
x
y&z
as
guilty
of
x,
y&z
I
am
suggesting
idiots
investigation
or
raising
concerns
in
the
public
interest
over
up
until,
of
course,
our
action
by
the
respondents
I'm
also
now
going
to
specifically
encourage
the
respondents
for
fill
an
appropriate
disclosure
to
this
committee
or
any
other
investigation
isn't
in
their
best
interest,
and
they
need
to
think
carefully
about
the
advice
that
they're
getting
from
legal
counsel
or
not.
Thank.
C
You
and
I'm
sure
the
convener
and
I
clerks
will
reflect
on
that.
They
can
ask
I
just
the
wider
question
in
case.
Others
have
more
specific
questions
this.
Obviously
it's
quite
an
unusual
scenario.
They
already
had
been
a
fire
in
a
live
environment,
a
building
which
is
clearly
serving
many
purposes.
As
as
the
deputy
convener
said,
it's
an
a
live
active
educational,
academic
environment.
There
is
also
a
budding
of
historic
importance
and
influence
in
Scotland,
and
he
great
treasure
to
his
in
that
respect.
C
That's
that
fire,
but
then
it
was
going
through
a
construction
period.
Where
there's
been
another
incident,
as
as
you
say,
do
you
think
that
building
should
have
been
treated
any
differently
to
any
other
live
construction
environment,
post,
incendiary
incidents?
So
if
you
take
another
example
of
a
building
which
had
had
a
fire
and
was
going
through
reconstruction
and
would
have
appropriate
fire
prevention,
mechons
mechanisms
in
place,
do
you
think
this
building
should
have
been
treated
any
differently?
Was
it
treated
any
differently?
And
if
not,
why
do
you
think
it
wasn't
treated
differently.
D
D
Many
types
of
instant
of
what
we
suggested,
we
always
look
at
the
conduct,
a
arrows
actions,
emissions
or
the
safety
features
and
protocols
or
the
case
for
mitigation
of
the
fans
before
during
and
after
each
event,
if
we
have
an
event,
a
piece
of
n,
we
want
to
learn
the
lessons
and
we
want
to
have
a
more
respond,
robust
response
to
prevent
a
next
one.
They
knew
the
issues
in
2006,
the
Builder
Hospital
for
2008.
They
were
about
to
fruit
separation
in
2014,
or
it
was
all
ready
to
be
installed.
D
D
Therefore,
with
a
thought
in
with
a
set
up-
and
it's
within
some
of
the
standards
to
look
at
it
more
strategically
and
holistically,
were
stakeholder
groups
started
Scotland
rescue
building
standards,
unspecified
engineers,
I,
don't
even
see
the
appointment
of
a
specialist
fire
engineer
between
2014
and
2018,
and
it's
one
of
the
things
that
our
drive
for
plus
the
integration
of
fire
security
is
a
security
announcement.
Prevention
and
resilience.
D
Persons
continue
America's,
partly
for
F
analysis,
contingencies,
disaster
recovery
and
crisis
media
response
and
those
examples
are
provided
to
the
committee
from
the
five
London
hospital
files
and
I've
also
provided
you
an
extensive
gauge
from
the
early
80s
90s,
which
is
about
that
thick
on
historic
building,
protection
of
fire
safety
and
contingency
planning.
So
all
the
information
is
there,
but,
as
we
recognize
as
experts
is
very
hardly
from
foreign
foreign
professionals
because
of
the
fragmentation,
what
is
the
right
route?
What's?
The
each
case
is
different.
D
We've
got
added
dynamics,
but
ultimately
this
was
a
building
of
a
working
one
of
the
oldest
working
skills
of
art
and
architecture.
It's
not
a
very
good
advertisement
to
have
one
but
two
major
destructive
fires.
To
school
architecture,
so
there's
a
reputation
of
consideration
and
what
we
see
and
the
the
government's
the
the
ODP
M&D
CLG
economics,
a
fire.
D
We
have
the
direct
course
and
an
insurable
cost,
which
accounts
for
one-third.
Two-Thirds
is
incidental
costs,
reputational
damage,
goodwill
loss,
concern,
legacy
issues,
speculation
and
which
accounts
for
two-thirds
and
most
companies
don't
recover.
We've
also
got
statistical
influence
in
a
statistic
that
I
call
for
FPE
is
that
98
60
%
of
construction
files
Clanton's
when
the
build
is
90%
complete
and
we'll
find
another
instance.
Thank
you.
A
I
Return
to
the
liner
question
that
Claire
Baker
had
and
that
one
of
the
issues
we've
raised
with
the
school
of
art
was
the
installation
and
lack
of
completion
of
the
the
fire
suppression
system
before
the
2014
fire.
The
concerns
I
raised
with
them
when
they
came
before
us,
where
they'd
raised
the
fact
are
their
claim
that
the
significant
delay
to
the
completion
of
the
fire
suppression
system,
pre
2014
fire,
was
the
discovery
of
asbestos
in
development.
Mr.
I
McKenzie,
you've
already
helpfully
commented
on
that,
and
what
I
raised
with
them
was
that
there
was
a
far
larger
delay
caused
by
the
fact
that
they
chose
to
fundraise
for
their
fire
suppression
system,
while
spending
existing
funds
in
other
areas,
their
property
portfolio,
expanded
at
the
time
and
I.
Wonder
if
you
have
a
view
on
the
priority
that
the
school
of
our
level
priority
that's
indicated
and
that
they
placed
on
fire
safety.
D
I'll
go
first
there.
This
is
probably
the
crux
of
the
problem:
what
wants
to
draw
the
committee's
attention
to
the
requirement
for
recipes
fire
safety
legislation
was
introduced
in
1997,
so
we've
got
a
massive
gap
from
the
end
to
2006
what
happened
and
then
between
time
with
the
fire
Scotland
died
in
2005.
D
Finally,
we
need
to
raise
some
money,
but
you've
already
done
all
the
long
lead
times
on
the
the
Kia
Building,
which
is
about
50
million
pounds
and
the
are
four
other
campuses,
so
account
argue
on
the
basis
off
they
needed
additional
redundancy.
They
only
had
one
site,
they
had
multiple
sites
model.
The
building's
does
mutual
receptacle
made
agreements
with
in
Glasgow
the
universities
under
thing
they
didn't
know
Glasgow
College
infrastructure.
D
D
We
need
to
do
a
more
detailed
investigate
to
help
us
understand
for
the
the
route
cross,
views,
the
component
views
or
the
Cascade
figures,
where
all
the
mitigation
afforded
to
all
the
parties
and
actually
attend
dependent,
H
Lipscomb
in
we
take
the
site
of
Public,
Safety
poverty
and
traced
and
for
the
evidence,
shows
us
and
then
the
most
important
thing.
Next
is
the
lessons
learned
and
where
do
we
go
next
and
recommendations
to
help
augment
the
committee
or
the
legislate
of
our
guidance
changes.
B
On
the
principle
of
incremental
improvement,
I
think
from
me
reading
the
documents
it
seemed
that
it
was
all
or
nothing,
in
other
words
they
had
to
get.
You
know
they
really
guide
everything
else
and
everything
went
on
the
mist
suppression
and
then
it
was
a
large,
complete,
complex
system
if
I
might,
which
was
expensive
and
too
wild.
B
I,
find
the
story.
Buildings
not
much
you're,
not
going
in
and
macerated
being
massive
disruption,
but
you're
slowly,
improving
the
fire
resilience
of
a
building.
But
it's
not
a
not
terribly
sexy.
It's
not
terribly
interesting.
It
was
not
a
big
project.
It'd
be
difficult
to
fundraise,
for
but
it
is,
it
is
approach
which
makes
building
safer
with
high
gloss
of
historic
fabric,
and
that
did
not
seem
to
have
been
considered
as
part
of
the
thing.
So
I
would.
D
Expansions,
the
expectation
would
become
London,
council,
beefs,
material
repair
and
maintenance
works.
The
captain
vesser
was
any
legislative
changes
following
like
the
1995,
a
Disability
Discrimination
Act
or
the
2010
provisions.
We
look
at
and
see
it.
Actually
we
need
to
upgrade
so
it
comes
with
public
parts
plus
augmented
through
student
fees,
consultancy
fees
and
other
means
of
generation
and
through
sponsors
and
stake
holders
in
the
building.
So
I
think
the
the
some
of
the
physicians
demons
require
clarity.
Thank
you.
Just.
A
D
A
A
J
Good
morning,
yes,
I
just
picking
up
on
a
few
issues
concerning
the
the
period
of
time
where
we
saw
after
the
first
catastrophic
fire,
and
then
we
we
saw
here
coming
to
to
the
situation
in
2016.
So
a
first
question
really
and
I
know
you've
already
referred
to
some
aspects
of
this.
You
know
the
the
the
position
with
regard
to
here
then
becoming
kind
of
de-facto
controller
of
the
property
in
terms
of
the
the
the
site
that
it
represented.
D
We
can
do
is
can
from
the
the
statute
position.
The
there's
been
a
number
of
statements
that
they
handed
control
off
the
site
to
the
contractor.
It's
not
complete
and
entire
control.
Besides,
you've
alluded
the
remain
the
owner
of
the
building.
They
are
employing
by
contract
the
contractor
to
act
as
their
competent
person
and
give
beneficial
control
off
the
site,
but
there
has
been
instances
where
the
client
can
also
have
beneficial
access
under
supervision.
What
there
is
no
such
requirement
under
construction
design
management
regulations
to
address
these
issues
is
the
identification
of
the
client
is.
D
The
ultimate
client
did
the
ultimate
responsible
person.
Then
they
appoint
a
principal
designer
and
a
principal
contractor
as
responsible
competent
persons
to
act
on
a
technical
detail,
but
the
client
must
ensure
they
have
adequate
ongoing
means
to
check
and
inspect
and
manage
those
parties.
They
can't
just
hand
over
the
site
and
walk
away.
They
must
have
that.
Hence
the
joint
fire
code
was
saluted
to
which
is
Africa
projects
over
2.5
million
pound.
It's
a
conditional
contract
or
an
insurance
requirement
under
that
threshold
for
high-risk
or
unusual
work.
D
J
K
J
On
one
point
and
then
come
in
so
you
said
that
you
would
recommend
that
the
beer
specialist
financial
year
is
kind
of,
although
it
seems
that
it's
a
recommendation,
it's
not
a
statutory
requirement
unless
I'm
misunderstanding
is
that
kind
of.
Would
that
be
expected
to
be
normal
practice
within
you
know
the
context
of
these
situations
that'd
be
kind
of
normal
that,
in
a
building
of
your
size,
with
the
you
know,
the
issues
involved,
yeah.
D
D
Yeah
there's
a
clear:
we
recognize
that
principals
and
academics
do
have
the
knowledge
of
our
safety,
so
we
have
provision
in
fast
goal
and
I
for
identification
of
fun,
ultimate
responsible
person
and
then
a
comma
pointment
of
a
competent
person,
I'm
the
provision
of
adequate
resources
and
authority
of
that
person
to
ensure
fire
safety.
If
you
don't
have
that
you're,
potentially
automatic
and
default,
the
legislation
non-compliant.
What
we're
trying
to
encourage
and
I'm
awesome
about
our
mafada
engineering,
armor
consultant.
D
It
seems
that
we
are
out
seeing
the
instance,
because
the
complexity
of
historic
buildings,
technologies,
fire
engineering
solutions
and
contemporary
engineer
knowledge.
There
is
beneficial
if
you're
in
house,
fire
safety
manager
or
nominated
competent
file,
designee
doesn't
have
the
scale
on
a
complex
project.
A
point
of
fire
engineer
on
the
client
side
to
give
oversight,
look
at
everything,
make
sure
everything
and
give
the
clients
options
where
we
have
attained
a
core
physical
challenge.
I,
don't
see
that
I
do
hope
that
it
was
there.
J
D
B
H
B
B
The
point
I
was
making
is
that
I
think
there
was
evidence
given
that
care
have
been
required
to
protect
the
asset
in
the
building.
But
what
we
haven't
seen
a
say
is
their
particular
virus
plans
are
in
the
construction
stage
and,
as
we
said
before,
it's
it's
not
start
rate
to
provide
that
extra
level
of
protection
of
the
historic
asset
it
would
be
have
to
be
something
come
from
the
client
side
to
make
it
a
requirement
and
I
think
the
client
did
say
they
did
build
it
into
the
requirements.
B
J
J
You
know
posts
here
being
appointed
in
terms
of
reports
of
you
know
a
number
of
activities,
and
it
seems
that
there
had
been
a
number
of
people
on
the
site
not
directly
related
to
you
know
the
construction
work,
so
there
had
been
apparently
lectures
there
had
been
what
classes
could
have
termed
and
I
quote
occasional
events.
We
understand,
because
we
saw
a
picture
in
social
media,
that
there
was
some
sort
of
big
choir
event,
for
example,
who
host
of
people
singing
with
hard
hats
on
on
a
building
site,
and
so
I.
Just
wonder
it.
J
You
know
from
your
for
you
from
your
perspective
from
fire
safety,
and
this
was
a
construction
site.
Is
this
kind
of
normal
I'm
and
also
one
other
thing
they
had
for
a
part
of
the
time
anyway.
Gsa
had
a
base
on
the
site,
apparently
some
facilities
and
it
included,
inter
alia,
a
microwave.
These
are
again
would
that
be
kind
of
or.
D
Would
expect
to
see
yes
I
think
I've
get
direct
knowledge
of
the
lighthouse
project
which
is
again
part
or
a
because
of
the
international
recognition.
It
was
a
short
duration
project.
They
were
fondant
challenges
there,
where
a
number
of
visitors
and
sponsors
to
this
site
and
longer
activities
that's
perfectly
acceptable
under
beneficial
occupation
under
the
provisions
of
the
contractors,
insurers,
construction
phase
of
here
from
safety
in
designer
management
plans.
So
it's
a
degree
of
collaboration
cooperation
on
that.
We
don't
expect
to
see
something.
D
There
is
obviously
not
appropriate
and
me
persons
in
danger
of
injury
or
death,
but
I
can't
comment
further
on
that,
but
we
can
see
that
we
can't
also
see
that
the
client
is
given
a
portion
of
the
building
for
practical
reasons,
for
a
site
based
off
a
project
office
with
a
welfare
provisions,
including
microwaves
and
such
like.
It
might
be
shy
away
from
the
toasters
and
some
other
items,
but
to
reduce
the
risk
but
microwaves,
legitimate.
It's
actually
a
law
rest
on
a
gas
tank.
D
You
could
allege
kakuka,
so
it's
appropriate
and
plus
under
the
health
or
safety
of
War
I.
Heaven
we
offer
regulations.
It
is
an
adequate
provision
and
I
think
that
just
needs
to
be
a
little
bit
more
clarity
from
the
project
team
and
the
nature
extended
activities
we
can
actually
shut
site
down
for
what
we
have
in
a
new
build
is
a
potential
topping
out
ceremony.
D
It's
a
marking
of
the
last
piece
of
steel
going
in
and
we'll
have
a
celebration,
but
we
are
for
a
boss,
security
in
site
boundaries
so
that
no
one
can
invent
Lee,
be
injured
or
wander
off
or
internet
and
a
proba
to
the
area.
So
there
is
ultimately
permissible
allowable
as
long
as
the
systems
of
operation.
What
collaboration
agreement
is
there
and
no
person
whether
actual
realized
or
an
anticipation
of,
is
exposed
to
a
injury,
a
health
disease
or
potentially
fatality
exposure?
And
that's
the
key?
D
B
And,
first
of
all,
the
principle
is
the
contractor
is
in
control
of
the
site
server.
Therefore,
there
should
have
been
no
activities
happening
in
nobody
in
with
hurt
the
contractors
permission,
and
he
should
only
be
giving
that
permission
if
he
can
provide
a
safe
environment
and
if
he
keeps
satisfied
that
there's
no
risk
to
him
to
the
works
of
the
building
as
a
result
of
that
so
the
illness,
it
remains
with
the
contractor.
In
those
cases,
it
is
quite
normal
to
invite
people
in
during
especially
in
heritage
buildings.
B
We
I
regularly
would
do
hardhat
tours
and
things
and
that's
partly,
but
explaining
the
story,
building
restoration
process
to
the
public
and
to
the
funders
and
the
owners
and
people
coming
in,
so
there's
nothing
abnormal
about
bringing
people
in
as
such,
but
the
control
of
it
and
the
management
of
it.
It's
important
and
obviously
rely,
but
it
responsibility
is
with
the
contractor
as
they
as
they
the
person
in
possession
of
the
site.
Okay,.
A
H
You,
following
on
from
measurings
questions,
you
talked
about
the
changeling
process
and
in
your
view,
was
it
robust
enough
when,
when,
when
that
tendering
process
was
being
processed
and
the
contracts
and
the
oversight
of
that
was
put
in
place,
do
you
believe
that
there
were
any
flaws
within
that
tendering
process?
I'm.
D
Going
to
respond
very
quickly,
I've,
not
a
sufficient
time
to
delve
into
that
factor
of
event,
sufficient
information
to
draw
a
reasonable
conclusions.
We
had
asked
for
a
more
time
and
more
disclosure.
We
don't
have
everything
client
requirements,
tender
process
due
diligence,
a
contractor
assessments,
a
contractor
award
criteria-
there
was
an
awful
lot
of
I
would
see,
gaps
and
standardized
course
of
practice
or
construction
or
a
client
or
insurance
requirements
on
this
project,
which
we
possibly
could
clarify
very
easily.
H
By
them
not
being
free
with
the
information
or
them
not
being
up
information,
it
then
leads
you
to
suspect
and
lead
you
to
believe
that
there
there
may
have
been
flaws
within
the
process,
because
if
they
were
completely
upfront
and
honest
about
what
was
going
on
and
what
was
to
take
place,
then
there
will
be
no
comments
raised
or
no
fears
within
that
process
with
them
doing
their
actions
they
do.
It
leads
us
to
believe
that
there
could
well
be
something
inadequate
within
the
process
that
may
well,
if
had
been
processed,
not
created
the
situation.
H
D
Why
I
recommend
to
clients
and
legal
counsel
know
quite
robustly
and
forcefully
a
the
the
DS
are
of
trying
to
minimize
exposure
or
self
implication,
argon,
openness
and
transparency
that
we
ahead
and
you
take
the
lead
from
the
investigating
authorities
and
the
prosecution,
a
counsel.
So
please
Gotland
found
far
Scotland
on
the
property
at
Frisco,
the
audio
lead
on
gate,
and
then
you
would
be
able
to
me
in
a
statement
because
from
the
advice
you've
received
and
right
from
them.
D
If
we
don't
have
that,
then
it
opens
up
to
the
speculation
which
said
that
the
the
past
is
find
objectionable.
I
prefer
to
call
it
hypothesis
for
testing,
and
then
we
actually
is
investigating.
So
far
the
engineers
are
expert.
Well
and
as
we
start
then
drafting
you
know
it
is
for
those
arrows
emissions,
misleading
or
a
conceited,
concealment,
I'm,
not
suggesting
in
this
case
I'm,
going
to
trust.
There
is
an
oversight
or
in
the
brevity
of
the
the
Lord
on
the
committee
and
they've.
Given
you,
the
high
level
documents
were
no
suggestion.
H
As
I
say
without
having
that
that
confidence
and
that
oversight,
then
the
speculation
will
continue,
as
you
rightly
identify,
and
that
creates
a
a
cloud
over
the
whole
process
as
to
how
competent
and
hope
how
the
the
whole
thing
was
managed
effectively
and
if
they're
not
prepared
to
show
that,
then
then
the
speculation
as
I
see
will
continue
to
be
the
the
function
going
forward.
Yes,
thank
you.
L
D
D
And
then
the
construction
team
and
I've
worked
on
all
sides
of
the
construction
sector
and
one
of
the
common
complaints
from
contractor.
Is
they
essentially
follow
the
instruction
and
requirements
of
the
client,
but
the
good
ones
will
make
recommendations
and
rubato
commendations
where
they
feel
the
client
is
opening
himself
up
to
exposure
or
there
are
alternative
ways
to
achieve
something
in
a
cheaper
or
safer
mono
I.
D
If
you
provide
that
all
you
always
speculation
or
errors
or
questions
about
your
transparency.
If
you
hide
behind
PR
statements
or
the
the
term,
we
can't
comment
or
provide
under
an
active,
ongoing
investigation.
It's
not
always
the
case,
because
I
will
work
with
someone
as
an
independent
expert
or
as
the
criminal
investigator
in
the
public
interest
and
I
know.
I
would
t
what
Connie
can't
be
disclosed
to
the
parties.
So
there
is
another
thing
there
in
it.
Look
at
one
of
the
reports
are
half
conveyed
to
the
clerk's
in
advance.
D
In
today's
meeting
was
the
report
from
the
five
London
hospital
files
because
they
went
in
Green
Lanes
to
Luca
what
were
the
failures?
What
were
the
compounding?
What
were
the
Cascades?
What
where
the
hospital
was
anti-sexist
responds
what
they
could
have
done
better
and
one
of
the
recurring
themes
was
crisis,
communications
and
I
think
falling
both
fires.
D
B
The
tragedy,
of
course,
is
it
didn't
get
finished
and
therefore
I
think
the
gap
in
the
clients
requirements,
scientific
requirements
and
the
contractors
requirements
was
in
terms
of
protecting
the
asset
during
the
construction
period,
and
you
know
we
have
the
evidence
from
previous
fire,
but
it's
also
of
all
the
historic
fires
that
take
place
during
construction
to
know
what
the
highest
risk
furnace
toric
building
is
actually
during
the
construction
period.
So
that's
the
bed
I
would
I
would
suggest,
is
the
gap
in
both
the
provision
and
it
was
it
was.
B
D
Was
designed
and
constructed
in
two
phases?
Is
it
female
areas,
the
East
Wing,
the
West
Wing
and
the
central
core?
We
can
also
subdivide
the
feast
installation
by
floor.
We
can
walk
top-down/bottom-up
and
we
can
build
an
or
the
infrastructure.
That's
why
the
construction
phase,
fire
safety
plan,
the
risk
assessments,
the
method,
statements,
the
contingencies
and
the
construction
program
are
absolutely
important
to
the
evidence,
because
I
could
have
seen
the
critical
path
then
and
I
capture
many
cases,
because
I'm
not
just
a
fire
engineer
and.
L
L
B
M
D
Clarity
on
was
it
as
a
result
of
the
beast
design
specification
and
then
the
most
more
detailed
and
matured
contracted
specialist
contractor
design
portion.
So
you
have
the
headline
design
specification
tender.
Then
a
contractor
on
for
life
safety
systems
were
point
a
specialist
subcontractor
who
would
then
finish
off
the
detail,
design
which
is
going
to
be
installed
a
tested,
commissioned,
inspected
and
and
handed
over
and
there's
a
number
of
certificates
going
through.
There
there's
also
evolution
of
the
British
and
international
standards
as
well.
A
You
very
much
communities
very
much
just
to
wind
up
and
if
you
could
be
as
brief
as
possible,
just
want
to
kind
of
like
really
Neil
this
issue
about
the
the
choice
of
our
Mis
suppression,
complex
manipulation
system
after
2008.
Instead
of
the
tried
and
tested
sprinkler
system
and
evidence,
we
were
told
to
D
since
PI
that
wasn't
done,
one
that
they
wouldn't
get
permission
for
it
and
and
one
that
there
wasn't
enough
water
and
garnet
Hill
to
actually
run
the
sprinkler
system.
What's
your
views
in
those
two
responses
and.
B
Well,
I
speak
from
a
conservation
architects.
A
few
point
to
start
with
to
me,
there
is
no
doubt
that
a
missus
prescient
system
is
better
for
story
building
fabric,
just
in
terms
of
the
sheer
amount
of
water
that
would
be
put
into
a
building
so
from
the
evidence
that
I
have
I
would
support
that
decision
to
go
for
a
misimpression
or
in
certain
areas.
There's
no
people
in
a
gas
present
system,
as
opposed
to
the
traditional
like
flood
of
order,
so
I
would
support
that.
B
D
Not
aware
of
any
reasons,
why
wouldn't
be
permissible?
It's
a
recognized
system
in
fact,
is
the
system
we
are
leaning
towards
an
historic
buildings
because
they
use
less
water.
That
was
less
kit,
that
is
less
damage.
I
want
to
correct
one
of
the
statements
by
a
GSE
who
said,
maybe
under
the
pressures
of
presenting
committee,
they,
the
the
water
damage,
is
more
destructive.
Actually,
we
can
recover
from
water
damage,
especially
historic
archives
and
contents,
but
we
can't
recover
from
a
catastrophic
fire.
We
can
do
it
times.
There
is
a
very,
very
cost
cost
prohibitive.
D
The
other
question
about
the
water
patient
supplies.
It
is
increasing
knowledge
that
we
can't
always
guarantee
water
supplies,
especially
if
there's
a
simultaneous
fire
or
water
main
box.
So
ice
continuing
to
see
the
water
authorities
and
providers
try
and
provide
minimum
pressure
and
flow
requirements
for
the
fire
service.
So
the
arre
Dave
everything
into
the
fire
means
for
that
several
contingency,
but
they're
encouraging
a
person's
installing
with
an
ability
of
their
own
redundant
and
resilient
tank
supplies.
And
again
the
waterless
system
is
pressurizing,
an
atomized
in
the
water,
so
we
need
less.
D
A
And
finally,
two
former
directors
of
the
art
school
have
suggested
that
the
pressures
of
running
a
major
educational
institution
are
not
compatible
with
rebuild
of
this
scale
and
complexity,
and
if
they
art
school
is
to
be
rebuilt,
it
should
be
taken
out
of
the
hands
of
the
board.
Do
you
have
a
view
on
that
and.
D
I
think
from
our
engineers
perspective,
you're,
recognizing
the
greatest
honest
BS
in
a
name
name
name,
the
need
for
stakeholder
consultation,
I.
Think
there's
a
need
for
stakeholder
consultation
on
what
happens
next
in
the
building
pair
say.
I
would
like
to
see
it
rebuild,
and
if
you
look
at
the
case,
I'm
going
to
provide
you
on
the
Windsor,
Castle
reclamation
and
refurbishment
I
can
go.
Does
any
number
of
pictures
work?
B
It's
not
so
much
about
if
you
like,
the
headline
institution
which
is
in
charge,
it's
the
people
who
are
tasked
and
to
be
experienced,
competent,
knowledgeable
to
do
the
work,
so
I
I,
don't
think
there's
a
case
as
such
for
taking
away
from
the
hospital
apart
and
it's
more
what
happens
below
in
terms
of
the
people
tasked
with
the
proper
running
of
the
job.
So
it's
it's.
The
experience
I'm
more
familiar
with
is
in
the
university
here
in
this
th
team.
D
A
A
A
The
building
was
assessed
as
requiring
a
fire
upgrades
and
they
said
that
you
were
involved
at
that
stage.
In
advising
them,
can
you
tell
us
a
little
bit
about
your
your
role
in
those
discussions
and
why
more
of
a
priority
was
not
put
on
installing
fire
prevention
methods
in
a
timely
way,
because
we
know
that
took
until
2014
before
any
fire
suppression
system
was
put
in
and
no
compartmentalization
was
done
at
all.
In
that
time,
your.
N
Chair
and
thank
you
for
the
committee
inviting
us
to
provide
answers,
and
we
are
involved
with
building
owners
across
Scotland
and
providing
advice
on
the
management
of
their
buildings
and,
in
particular,
arrest
a
significant
one
like
with
Glasgow
School
of
Art,
quite
closely
involved
with
them
and
with
the
local
authority,
who
are
ultimately
responsible
for
deciding
if
consents
are
required
and
whether
to
grant
consents
or
not.
So
we
we
act
in
an
advisory
capacity,
and
on
that
basis
we
do
not
tell
people
what
to
do
there.
N
When
it
comes
to
things
like
fire
measures,
there
will
be
experts
and
you've
heard
from
experts
earlier
this
morning.
Who
will
be
advising
on?
What's
the
appropriate
mechanism,
we
will
give
advice
for
our
interests
in
the
historic
environment,
about
the
impact
that
that
might
have
on
the
fabric
of
a
building,
for
example,
and
whether
or
not
the
intervention
is
appropriate.
N
I
have
to
say
we
were
discussing
this
before
the
committee
started,
and
we
can't
think
of
an
instance
where
we
have
said
that
a
suppression
system
or
compartment
ation
or
other
measures
that
are
appropriate
for
fire
safety
should
not
be
allowed
in
a
historic
building.
We
can't
think
of
an
instance
where
we
have
advised
against
that,
but
we
can't
compel
someone
to
do
something
and
a
timely
manner
either.
N
A
N
A
You
know
you
talk
over
to
your
role
and
consensus
is
very
much
about
making
sure
things
are
in.
You
know,
preserved
us
as
say
as
they
should
be
in
terms
of
historical
and
artistic
integrity
being
maintained
and-
and
you
have
given
a
lot
of
and
your
your
own
submission.
You
sure
you've
given
a
lot
of
money
to
Glasgow
School
of
Art
over
the
years
in
terms
of
upgrading
it
I
mean
I,
think
you
know
what
given
the
context
of
two
fires
and
one
of
our
most
precious
buildings.
A
People
would
perhaps
question
why
you
roll
em,
was
reserved
to
those
aspects
of
conservation,
because
if
two
fires
destroy
our
precious,
our
faith
and
there's
nothing
left
to
conserve,
and
perhaps
your
role
should
have
been
a
little
bit
more
proactive
about
making
sure
that
we
had
also
put
forward
them.
Detection
measures
to
to
stop
the
destruction
of
such
a
precious
asset.
I.
N
So
we
have
to
be
have
to
be
careful
that
we're
not
apportioning
a
degree
of
blame
about
people
not
being
up-to-date
with
current
technology,
current
ways
of
thinking
and
current
building
management
practices.
We
encourage
good
practice
and
we
do
that
through
the
guidance
and
advice
that
we
provide.
We
have
a
guidance
note
on
fire
protection
in
traditional
buildings
and
we
have
managing
change
guidance
on
that,
and
we
certainly
advocate
that
for
owners.
But
but
you
can't
retrospectively
apply
what
you
would
no
expect
of
a
brand
new
building
when
occupants
change
or
when
new
developments
occur.
A
But
you've
been
involved
in
after
2000
Denis.
You
would
involved
according
to
Glasgow
School
of
Art
themselves.
You
seem
to
be
you
know
you
attended
workshops,
you
were
quite
intimately
involved
and
you
know
they're
planning
for
the
future
of
the
building.
Surely
at
that
point
you
should
have,
you
know
installed
a
sense
of
urgency
in
terms
of
both
compartment
ation
and
a
fire
suppression
system.
N
It's
there
isn't
anything
that
we
can
do.
That
requires
somebody
to
implement
measures
or
consents
within
any
particular
time
frame.
That's
not
not
the
remit
that
we
have
if
the
and
I'm
not
sure
how
that
would
be
enforceable.
In
any
event.
Anyway,
we
have
no
enforcement
powers,
we
have
no
decision-making
powers.
N
N
We
can
respond
to
what
they're
choosing
to
do
and
we
can
give
advice
on
on
what
we
know
of
the
construction
of
original
building
and
what
would
be
an
appropriate
alternative,
but
we
can't
require
anyone
to
do
anything.
The
decisions
that
are
taken
about
physical
alterations
are
taken
by
the
local
authority,
as
the
planning
authority
I
see.
Okay,.
A
Do
you
think
that
your
rule
should
be
changed?
Then
you
know
we
have
lost,
I
mean
it's
a
it's
an
international
embarrassment
before
us
to
one
of
the
you
know
the
greatest
pieces
of
art
ever
produced.
We
were
custodians
over
em
and
we've
lost
it,
and
do
you
think,
in
the
context,
by
international
embarrassment
that
perhaps
your
rule
should
change.
N
I,
don't
think
historic
environment
should
be
responsible
for
and
preventing
disastrous
fires
across
the
historic
environment.
We
can
respond
to
the
causes
of
this
far,
as
we
did
to
the
previous
one,
in
updating
our
guidance
from
the
lessons
learned
in
that,
but
I,
don't
I
don't
understand
what
powers
we
could
be
given
to
to
deal
with
this
in
the
future
and
we've,
given
that
the
regulations
are
from
construction
regulations
and
building
regulations
are
around
fire.
A
N
E
Thank
You
convener,
and
so
this
morning
you've
said
that
it's
not
your
role
to
compel
or
to
make
requirements
on
those
circus
audience
of
historic
buildings.
You
can
give
advice
and
as
experts
in
this
field,
do
you
have
concerns
then,
because
who
do
you
think
should
be
compelling
and
who
should
be?
You
mention
local
authorities,
but
you
have
any
concern
that
local
authorities
dream.
It
is
and
some
ways
are
there.
N
Molotov
are
a
variety
of
regimes,
wonder
which
that
happens.
So
you
know
we're
all
involved
in
supporting
the
Scottish
government
in
drafting
legislation
and
regulations.
So
a
range
of
experts
will
input
to
that
so
building
regulations
which
would
control
what's
appropriate
and
once
they're
managed
by
Building
Standards
officers
in
local
authorities.
There
are
fed
into
buying
experts
from
all
over
the
country
when
they're,
when
they're,
drafted
and
subject
to
full
consultation,
so
I'm
I,
don't
think
it's
any
one
individual
who's
responsible
for
ensuring
that
those
are
fit
for
purpose.
Overall.
N
Although
I'm
speculating
here
that
when
it
comes
to
the
fire
service,
their
primary
concern
will
always
be
in
protecting
life.
And
if
that
means
letting
an
important
building
rule
because
there's
a
fire
happening
in
it,
then
possibly
so
be
it
at
the
time,
because
that
decision
will
be
taken
on
the
ground
by
the
fire
service.
At
the
time.
A.
E
Final
question:
do
you
have
any
is
a
prior
to
the
2014
fire?
You
know
the
oculars
have
said
the
fire
was
started
by
an
individual
student
who
was
not
following
the
rules
and
two
hearts
there.
They
were
made
to
go
up
at
a
time
and
that
have
been
questions
have
asked
about
the
type
of
work
that
they
are
at
college.
Was
their
students
were
undertaken
in
that
building
and
whether
it
was
appropriate
for
the
building
of
that
nature?
J
J
Okay-
and
indeed,
some
have
suggested
that
the
the
McIntosh
building
of
the
future
be
handed
over
to
a
trust
and
I
just
wondered
from
historic
environment
Scotland
perspective
you
know:
has
there
been
any
consideration
over
the
piece
about
whether
actually
higher
education
institutions
have
the
necessary
expertise
to
to
actually
manage
so
category
II
listed
buildings
of
national
significance,
like
the
the
McIntosh
building
represents?
Is
that
something
that
a
high
register,
historic
environment
Scotland,
has
actually
reflected
upon
further
to
agreement
and.
N
In
short
gnome,
but
as
a
slightly
longer
answer,
as
I
said
earlier,
there
are
over
forty
five
thousand
listed
buildings
and
Scotland
all
generally
and
the
responsibility,
the
the
owners
and
those
are
private
individuals
from
individual
householders
to
institutions.
Nhs
occupies
historic
buildings
as
well.
I
think
we're
very
dangerous
road
to
go
down
to
say
that
an
owner
can't
or
can't
access
the
expertise
necessary
to
look
after
their
building
mm-hmm.
J
But
you
know
in
the
sense
that
this
is
you
know
it's
not
just
any
old
historic
building.
It
was,
you
know
an
absolute
as
I
say
jewel
in
the
crane
and
I
just
wondered.
Then
this
historic
environment
Scotland
have
no
role
at
all
in,
in
considering
the
suitability
of
owners
of
category
listed
buildings.
Is
there
no
role
at
all
in
that
process?
None
whatsoever
so.
K
J
J
And
last
question
community
for
me
quickly:
you
know!
So
if
we
look
to
the
McIntosh
building
and
the
GAC
they're
having
two
catastrophic
fires:
okay,
in
a
short
space
of
time
and
in
very
much
the
recent
past,
so
you
know,
does
historic
environment
Scotland
have
any
view
on
whether
actually
going
forward?
It
should
be
the
GAC
that
should
retain
control
of
the
Macintosh
building
as
rebuilt,
or
should
this
be
handed
over
to
a
trust,
as
some
people
have
suggested.
Ets
have
a
view
not
no.
K
F
Start
by
I'm
just
asking
when
you
provide
grant
assistance
as
you
do,
you
obviously
lay
conditions
on
those
that
grab
sister,
don't
you
and
would
any
of
those
normal
grants,
particularly
a
big
and
important
historic
building
include
issues
racially
relating
to
fire
suppression,
fire
avoidance
fire.
Whatever
you
want
to
call
it,
it.
M
F
F
Yeah
and
in
the
case
of
Glasgow
in
case
of
the
building
were
discussing
today,
when
you
consider,
when
you
considered
your
grant
conditions
for
giving
them
new
new
monies
new
public
monies
in
relation
to
the
rebuild.
What
was
that
it
was
that,
given
any
thought,
the
the
importance
of
ensuring
fire
absolutely.
M
M
M
F
M
N
F
N
F
N
N
F
A
A
G
Thank
you
very
much,
convener
and
good
morning
if
I
could
continue
on
this
team,
just
to
clarify
for
myself
since
1995
up
until
2012
but
help
started.
Environment
Scotland's
have
given
1
million
two
hundred
twenty
six
thousand
eight
hundred
and
forty
four
pounds
to
school
of
art
and
it's
all
basically
been
repaired
work,
and
we
now
understand
that
there
are
conditions
put
on
in
regards
to
insurance,
etc,
etc.
G
But
to
move
on
from
that,
you
didn't
mention
that
possibly
not
yourselves,
but
you
did
have
a
so-called
expert
representative
there
and
we
had
earlier
on,
but
it
would
have
been
advisable
to
have
a
special
fire
officer
appointed
at
this
point.
No,
that
isn't
within
the
agreement
to
suggest
that
that
correct,
okay,
so
I've
got
that
point.
Then
we
then
go
on
to
see
that
you
also
attended
meeting
member
of
staff,
attended
me
to
the
restoration
committee
again
and
to
advise
on
details
and
to
ensure
that
the
substantial
public
investment
it
was
a
properly
directed.
G
N
Purely
would
be
on
the
the
conservation
interventions
and
I
suppose,
though,
some
some
of
the
decisions
around
what
the
physical
interventions
would
mean
for
the
special
interest
of
the
building
or
other
decisions
around
rest.
You
know
restoration
approaches
to
particular
parts
of
the
building.
I,
don't
know
if
you've
got
particular
examples
of
things
where
you
think
we
might
have
provided
specific
advice.
That
would
be
helpful
approaches.
K
G
Oh,
you
could
really
advise
on
the
taker
with
the
Jews,
so
basically
you're
giving
grants
to
the
Glasgow
School
of
Art.
You
have
no
Rhema
or
locus
to
protect
any
of
the
monies
really
that's
been
put
in.
So
at
the
end
of
the
day,
the
school
of
art
are
the
people
who
dictate
how
this
money
is
going
to
be
spin.
Is
that
correct.
M
Yeah
I'll
take
that.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
that
question.
No,
we
dictate
the
quality
of
work
that
takes
place
with
cron,
aided
interventions
through
through
the
ground
so
effectively
by
offering
a
grant
to
the
Glasgow
School
of
Art.
We
we
work
in
conjunction
with
the
conservation
act,
architects,
internally
and
externally,
so
said
that
glossary
School
of
Arts
professional
advisers
and
our
own
internal
ones
to
define
what
the
best
intervention
and
most
suitable
intervention
is,
and
that
is
what
we're
funding
the.
G
M
We
we
worked
with
the
Glasgow
School
of
Art
on
a
on
a
wide
ranging
repair
program
which
was
funded
by
multiple
funders
and
was
much
more
wide
reaching
than
just
historic.
Tomorrow,
the
Historic
Scotland
at
the
time
was
able
to
fund,
because
we've
got
grant
eligible
criteria.
We
can
only
fund
repair
work.
We
can't
fund
new
interventions.
Our
oversight
of
the
whole
project
was
satisfied
because
systems
have
been
put
in
place,
such
as
a
fast
suppressant
system,
which
was
part
of
the
wider
project
and
insurance.
M
We
didn't
necessarily
were
unable
sorry.
We
were
unable
to
fund
those
elements
because
there
were
new
interventions.
However,
other
funders
were
so
when
you
take
the
whole
package
we
were.
We
were
satisfied
that,
at
the
end
of
the
project,
there
would
be
a
safe
and
secure
building.
We
are,
unfortunately
in
a
position
where
we
never
got
to
that.
No.
G
K
A
I
L
You
convener
I
mean
you
said
your
job
is
to
look
at
their
merits
of
the
building
and
I
caught
a
not
to
prevent
a
disastrous
fires.
I'd
want
to
go
into
creation
that
what
had
he
been
asked
well,
I'm
just
wondering
in
terms
of
going
forward.
Well,
we
are
where
we
are
I'm,
just
wondering
what
conditions
you
may
apply
to
future
glance,
if,
indeed
M
the
Macintosh
is
rebuilt,.
M
Absolutely,
we
will
be
looking
lessons
to
be
learnt
from
the
findings
of
this
committee
and
seeing,
if
there's
anything
else,
that
we
can
be
putting
in
in
advance
in
excess
of
what
we
already
do
around
looking
at
the
the
project
as
a
whole.
Looking
at
what
the
end
state
of
that
project
is
going
to
look
like
looking
at
the
sustainability
of
the
organisation's
who
operate
the
the
end
product
and
in
indeed
insurance
during
the
construction
phase,
as
well
as
post,
and
then
actually
also
the
ongoing
maintenance
of
the
granted
building.
M
L
Days
that
it's
I
would
imagine
our
Lord
hasn't
ability
penicillin
idea,
probably
a
very
Luke,
almost
a
damn
to
come
without
as
much
as
possible
towards
that
towards
what
they
all
did.
Mcintosh,
look
like
hiss
or
not
reckon
add,
would
a
storm.
It's
gotta
be
willing
to
consider
day,
as
it
would
consider
I'm
an
existing
all
the
building,
given
that
slate
with
to
be
a
replica
would
suspect,
or
the
fact
that,
as
would,
you
can
have
not
be
involved
at
all
and
that
and
therefore
that,
wouldn't.
L
N
As
it
were,
is
vicariously
in
the
hands
of
the
insurer
know,
we
would
be
involved
in
the
consenting
processes
that
will
that
will
undoubtedly
go
through
both
planning
permission
and
listed
building
consent,
for
whatever
physical
recovery
will
happen
on
on
the
site.
So
we
will
be
involved
in
giving
advice
on
that
and
on
the
appropriate
measures,
and
I
would
expect
that
we
be
part
of
the
conversation
around
fire
safety
measures
as
part
of
okay.
H
N
Not
in
relation
to
our
statute
of
duties,
but
we
always
learn
lessons
from
disastrous
events.
Unfortunately,
they
happen
more
frequently
and
we
would
like
not
always
just
fire
and
as
I
say,
we
updated
our
guidance
following
the
first
fire.
We
constantly
undertake
research
into
the
performance
of
historic
buildings
and,
where
necessary,
that
then
informs
our
guidance.
H
H
I
know
that
I
was
talking
about
the
processes
that
were
taking
place
for
the
tenders
when
contracts
are
given
out
in
the
earlier
evidence
sessions.
So
do
you
have
any
role
in
that
whole
process
at
all,
once
the
contract
and
the
tenders
have
been
fulfilled
and
that
the
contractors
are
on-site
about
what
would
be
involved
in
any
of
that
process?.
N
H
M
Say
so,
if
there's
a
granted
case
during
the
life
of
the
project
of
the
repair
project,
historic
environment,
Scotland
representatives,
who
are
normally
architects
from
from
our
architects
team,
will
go
on
site
just
to
make
sure
of
the
quality
of
work.
That's
taking
place
throughout
that
process
and
effectively
protecting
the
public
investment
and
making
sure
it's
going
to
what
has
been
agreed.
So
the
agreed
scheme
of
repair
and.
M
How
would
that
be
managed,
so
that
gets
managed
back
to
back
to
ourselves
as
a
grants
team,
and
we
go
back
to
the
applicant,
who
is
not
normally
the
owner
of
the
building
and
saying
that
we
have
found
substandard
repair
works,
for
example,
and
they
will
take
that
forward
with
their
contractor.
We
will
not
be
releasing
funds
for
anything
which
my
professional
advisers
have
suggested
are
substandard,
something.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
C
You
convener
can
I
just
I
know
a
lot.
A
lots
already
been
said
around
grant
funding,
but
can
I
just
ask
some
specific
questions
and
feel
free?
This
is
quickfire.
You
can
answer
succinctly
of
the
1.2
million
pounds
you've
given
to
the
GSA.
Has
any
of
that
money
been
in
relation
to
fire
suppression
or
fire
safety
or
securing
the
building
in
relation
to
fire
risk
succinctly.
M
K
C
M
Whether
we
could
fund
a
new
fire
suppressant
system
as
part
of
their
discussions
as
how
they
would
raise
money,
we,
you
heard
evidence
earlier
about
how
your
fundraising
for
that
and
we
went
back
to
the
legislation
which,
at
the
time,
was
under
the
1953
historic
buildings.
An
ancient
monument
Act,
which
specifically.
M
C
You
said
with
it,
and
we
said
no,
so
what
makes
you
think,
then,
that,
given
that
your
remit
is
around
the
conservation
and
I
fight,
just
look
at
your
website,
it
says
historic
violence
gone.
Is
the
lead
public
body
established,
investigate
care
for
and
promote
Scotland's
historic
environment,
which
bit
of
that
means
that
you
can
say
no
to
request
for
money
to
protect
an
historic
building,
because.
M
C
N
N
Are
lots
of
parts
of
the
systems
within
which
we
operate
that
we're
not
preventing
that
happening,
and
we
expect
things
to
be
a
package.
We
do
not
give
100
percent
funding
to
any
project,
there's
always
a
portion
that
must
come
from
the
owner
from
other
sources
of
fundraising
so
and
we're
changing
the
the
criteria
for
our
grants.
We'll
still
won't
solve
that
problem.
C
The
rate
what
what
I'm
getting
is
the
rules
around
making
a
decision
on
the
criteria
based
on
what
your
on
your
interpretation
of
what
you
can
and
can't
give
money
for,
there's
a
very
thin
line
between
what
is
a
repair
and
what
is
a
new
intervention?
You
could
argue
that
all
repairs
and
interventions,
because
they're
replacing
something
that
either
doesn't
exist
or
is
lost
so
I
guess
who
makes
that
decision
as
to
whether
this
is
a
repair?
C
N
Think
I
would
argue
that
my
suppression
system
is
a
repair
unless
it's
an
agent
mr.
suppression
system
that
was
put
in
in
the
eighteen
hundreds
that
somebody
who's
repairing
but
I,
see
your
point
and
I
can
understand
why
you
asked
the
question:
it's
not
something.
That's
part
of
our
current
grant
program
and
there's
a
big
call
on
our
on
our
grants.
So
I
would
be
cautious
about
saying
that
this
is
something
that
we
would
want
to
support.
Okay,.
C
And
just
as
a
last
wider
question,
are
you
confident
and
comfortable
that
you
have
fulfilled
your
obligations
with
regards
to
Rima
and
preserving
and
helping
the
owners
of
such
buildings
protect
those
buildings?
Given
there
was
a
catastrophic
fire
and
then
a
subsequent
one?
Do
you
are
you
comfortable
that
your
agency
has
entirely
met
Europe
your
public
obligations?
It
would
regards
to
helping
that
building,
maintain
its
status
as
a
valuable
heritage
and.
N
I
can't
really
respond
in
response
to
the
second
fire,
because
I
think
there's
still
a
way
to
go
there
and,
in
particular
understanding
the
causes
of
that,
but
certainly
in
relation
to
the
first
one
I
would
say
we
went
over
and
above
we
were
part
of
supporting
the
salvage
operation
and
helping
the
helping
at
that
point
in
time.
There
may
well
be
lessons
that
we
will
learn
as
a
result
of
this
one.
That
would
lead
us
to
believe
that
we
could
have
done
things
differently
or
better
on
tarrallton,
okay,.
I
N
F
Supplementary
if
I'm
a
convener
to
the
points
of
Jimmy
green
spirit
making,
you
mentioned
their
restoration
committee
earlier
on
and
therefore,
although
I
guess
all
the
organizations
who
were
grant
funding
the
restoration
were
part
of
that.
When
I
take
your
answers
to
Jamie
Greene
about
you
were
asked
to
provide
money
for
a
fire
suppression
system
and
couldn't
do
it.
But
in
that
restoration
committee,
didn't
you
collectively
all
sit
around
there
and
say
that's
got
to
be
part
of
it
and
therefore
someone's
got
to.
F
F
Some
stage
all
the
funding
organizations
you're
part
of
it
appreciate
that
we're,
presumably
in
a
room,
seeing
right
we're
all
going
to
assist
to
rebuild
this
fantastic
asset
for
Scotland
and
for
the
nation
we
understand
owes
a
fire
by
then
we
understood
what
had
happened.
Isn't
it
going
to
be
crucially
important
that
one
of
us
comes
up
to
the
plate
with
the
money
to
make
that
happen?
Did
that
happen
so.
M
We'll
at
that
point
there
was
no
funders
money
involved
because
it
was
all
under
the
insurance,
because
the
fire
had
already
happened
so
that
the
funders
had
had
the
discussion
previous
to
the
first
fire
and
absolutely
there
was
a
recognition
that
there
needed
to
be
a
faster
present
system
and
someone
was
funding
it.
Other
funders
were
funding
it.
It
was
a
fully
funded
project
when
it
went
on
site
and
after
the
fire
as
funders,
we
didn't
have
a
locus
anymore,
because
what
we
had
funded
had
gone
up
in
smoke.
M
F
N
That
would
have
been
part
of
the
conversation
around
the
restoration
committee
work.
So
that's
not
UPS
not
about
the
money.
At
that
point,
that's
and
that's
about
what's
necessary
and
it
has
been
understood
for
as
I
saved
from
before
the
first
fire
that
fire
suppression
and
fire
safety
measures
were
absolutely
essential
in
this
building.
That's
not
a
point
to
be,
but.
F
Jamie
asked
is
a
question:
do
you
mean
ask
you
the
question
and
you
were
asked
to
provide
funding
for
fire
suppression
system
for
the
new
build?
You
said
you
couldn't
my
simple
question:
I
won't
say
too
simple
is
sure
you
therefore
all
being
asked
for
that.
Didn't.
Do
you
not
all
get
together
and
agree
who
was
going
to
do
it?
We.
M
F
A
A
Fire
that,
because
it
was
Jimmy
you
where
they
were
refused
to
grant
in
terms
of
your
line
of
question
Jamie
after
the
2006,
which
we
know
from
people
who
sat
down
and
workshopped
with
their
Glasgow
School
of
Art
and
the
council
and
views
other
people
I
think
the
point
is
that
it
took
such
a
long
time
to
install
a
fire
suppression.
After
that
conversation
happened
in
2006
and
surely
you
should
have
been
intervening
at
that
point
to
see.
Why
hasn't
it
been
done
sooner
well,.
M
A
M
A
And
we're
going
to
have
to
finish
up,
but
I
just
wanted
to
ask
you.
We
did
ask
you
and
you
thank
you
for
the
written
evidence
that
you
provided.
We
did
ask
you
about
the
lessons
to
be
learned
from
the
Macintosh
fires,
and
you
did
see
that
the
historic
environment
Scotland
had
issued
a
new
management
managing
change
in
this
Datuk
environment,
Gaiden
snorts
on
fire
safety
management
after
the
2014
fire.
Can
you
give
us
more
details
and
what
that
guidance
Nauts
advised
that.
N
Goes
through
what
it's
important
to
consider
as
part
of
fire
safety,
it
recognizes
that
there
needs
to
be
fire
safety
measures
as
part
of
any
scheme.
So
it's
it's
quite
high
level,
because
we
have
the
detailed
technical
guidance,
as
I've
already
said,
it
talks
about
compartment
ation,
it
talks
about
sprinkler
systems.
A
N
A
Just
that
you
know
I've
written
evidence
from
Stewart
kids
and
the
fire
safety
expert
who's.
Also
one
of
your
advisers
just
talk
about
the
about
the
joint
code
which
he
helped
draw
up,
but
also
in
your
for
practitioners.
2010,
yes,
which
he
says,
draws
on
the
joint
chord
note
that
joint
chord
goes
well
above
any
fire
safety
plan
and
says
that
you
know
you
know.
Fire
suppression
systems
should
should
be
put
in
dueling
construction
to
preserve
and
to
preserve
precious
assets.
N
A
You've
spent
quite
a
lot
of
time,
drawing
up
very
technical
and
careful
advice
and
about
a
virus
and
during
construction.
So
so
clearly
you
know
you
do
give
advice,
but
when
you
were
actually
involved
intimately
involved
in
the
restoration
project
you
were
on
the
restoration
committee.
You
didn't
seem
to
insist
that
that
advice
was
forward
advice.
A
A
Finally,
you
talked
about
you
know
the
number
of
listed
buildings
in
Scotland
and
how
it's
the
responsibility
of
the
owners
and
your
are
you
still
having
a
listed
building
a
be
listed
building
and
I
would
have
expected
my
building
to
be
treated
in
the
same
way.
As
you
know,
the
Macintosh
School
of
Art,
but
I'm
getting
the
impression
that
you're
applying
a
kind
of
late.
Well
this
that
you
know
this
is
this-
is
what
I
regulation
see
and
we've
got
all
these
buildings
and
it's
almost
as
though
there's
parity
across
them.
A
Instead
of
as
the
organization
tasked
with
preserving
a
historic
environment
and
our
assets,
perhaps
you
should
be
seeing
that
there
are
some
buildings
that
are
so
precious
that
they
require
special
measures
and
I'm,
not
getting
in
terms
of
your
evidence
as
a
whole
I'm,
not
getting
a
sense
that
you're
coming
forward.
But
you
know
you're
prioritizing
buildings
like
the
Macintosh.
N
A
Yeah
so
B
category
II
listed
buildings
that
aren't
as
important
as
a
Macintosh
I
mean
that
actually,
your
answer
kind
of
illustrates
the
point
that
I'm
trying
to
make
that
you
know
like.
Surely
you
know,
as
the
organization
protect
thing
Oh
bill
environment
that
should
be
absolutely
uppermost
in
your
mind.
N
I
would
say
that
our
involvement
with
the
Macintosh
has
been
very
detailed
and
very
close
over
over
many
years,
and
we
would.
We
have
paid
more
attention
to
that
than
others
because
of
the
nature
of
the
activities
that
have
gone
on
there
in
particular
post
the
first
fire.
So
it
has
had
special
attention
but-
and
it
still
doesn't,
allow
us
to
go
beyond
our
rule
and
remit
and
what
we
can
require.
C,
okay,.
A
N
E
E
Ivan
the
Keith
later
the
second
page
at
the
start
really
says
at
the
end
of
2017,
we
were
notified.
The
value
of
the
programmes
have
been
reduced
by
22
million
as
a
result
of
the
expansion
of
targets
for
2017
not
being
made.
Officials
are
working
hard
to
ensure.
So
the
paragraph
follows
the
same
theme:
I,
don't
know
if
we
want
to
us
for
a
bit
more
detail
on
that.
We.
A
A
E
L
There's
been
a
reduction
in
youth
unemployment
from
1900
to
1200.
Actually,
I
got
a
specific
details
from
space,
because
when
asked
the
question
and
chamber,
the
minister
only
gave
me
percentage.
Figures
are
supposed
to
numbers
of
real
people,
I'm
just
wondering
if
we
can
ask
how
much
of
that
would
be
due
to
the
impact
to
Europe
in
structural
funds.
Okay,.
L
A
Think
we
may
also
wish
to
ask
about
the
1+2
line,
which
is
policy
and
ask
for
an
update
on
that,
because
there
are
some
interesting
trends
in
the
optech
of
language
courses
across
a
range
of
qualifications.
So
I
think
it
would
be
useful
given
the
downward
trend
and
not
to
ask
more
questions
there.
And
finally,
the
report
contains
and
updates
in
relation
to
highs
and
2020
and
I
think
it
would
be
useful
to
obtain
further
information
and
what
scenario
planning
the
Scottish
Government
is
done
in
relation
to
the
access
to
horizon
Quinn
2020
funds.
A
C
Thank
you
very
clearly.
The
major
factor
that
will
affect
language
take-up
is
a
the
availability
of
that
subject:
choice
in
the
education
environment
that
you've
written
so
I'd
be
keen
to
learn
from
the
government
what
the
trends
have
been
in
relation
to
the
number
of
languages
available
to
pupils
and,
secondly,
the
availability
of
language
teachers
and
I-
don't
see
any
date
on
this
with
regards
to
again
trends
in
the
number
of
teachers
for
each
specific
language
that
they
want
to
promote.
C
I
You
and
on
exactly
the
same
vein
as
Jimmy
Dean's
points,
some
of
the
information
that
Jimmy's
just
cited
as
not
being
here
as
information
that
the
Education
Committee
has
begun
to
gather
and
for
a
piece
of
work
that
we'll
be
doing
this
year
on
subject:
choice
in
school
languages
are
obviously
a
core
part
of
where
there
are
issues
with
subject
choices.
My
suggestion
would
be
that
much
of
information
that
she
was
just
cited
that
would
be
useful
for
this
committee.
I
L
Is
we
all
spoke
there
I
think
you
know
from
our
cultural
and
European
aspect
as
well,
not
just
European.
There's
an
issue
about
what
languages
is
well
and
breadth
of
languages
for
actual
look
at
and
we
Nell
to
hugely
Wheaton
in
favor
of
French
and
then
l3
it's
a
primary,
it's
a
Spanish
is
dominant,
but
there
are
so
many
languages.
One
would
expect
to
be
included
here
that
are
and
the
obvious
one.
For
example,
there
would
be
things
like
Russian
Arabic,
and
these
can
languages.
L
So
you
know
language
that
a
real
important
front
for
commerce
and
even
em
and
I
think
we
should
be
looking
to
ask
the
Scottish
Government
what,
though
it's
definitely
towards
education,
commit
you
know
what
steps
that
are
taken
to
try
and
expand
the
number
and
choices
of
languages
that
we're
actually,
especially
for
going
to
exceed
Europe
things
like
Russian,
Arabic
nd
will
be
important.
What
you
think,
okay.
J
B
J
Has
a
wider
role
to
play
and
I
think
it
would
be
really
helpful
to
seek
further
clarity
on
Erasmus,
visibly
the
issue,
one
plus
two
language
policy
and
how
it
has
played
a
ruin.
What
is
anticipated
going
forward
in
the
wider
context
of
breaks
no
deal
deal
Erasmus
because
it
is
such
a
fantastic
scheme
and
it
is
a
worry
I
know
to
everybody
that
what's
going
to
happen
in
further
to
our
discussions
with
I,
think
up
Creek
in
our
visit
to
Brussels
I.
A
H
Did
you
want
to
come
in
I
think
you've
identified?
You
know
we
heard
yesterday
that
those
contingencies
in
place
and
and
the
Scottish
government
doing
specific
things
I
think
you've
identified
in
either
with
the
last
month
and
2020
that
we
should
be
really
focusing
in
to
see
exactly
where
we
are
and
what
is
in
place
as
to
ensure
that
we
can
manage
the
situation
depending
on
what
happens.
Okay,.