Hansard

I thank the committee and its convener, Joan McAlpine. The committee made a forensic examination of the tragedy of the Glasgow School of Art fire. The committee report must be commended as one of the most important reports that the Parliament has completed so far. It got to the heart of the tragedy and asked some questions that still have to be answered.

For the second time in four years, Glasgow School of Art was ablaze, and Sauchiehall Street was cordoned off. It was a tragedy for the school of art, for those who are associated with it and love it and for local businesses. The O2 ABC is still devastated. We still do not know the future of that important music venue—I have worked closely with Adam Tomkins on that. As he and other members mentioned, the community has been devastated. Because of the difficulties in getting emergency accommodation, families were split up. People tried to return to their homes on the night of the fire but were not allowed to return for four months. They were not allowed to go and collect personal belongings. We should never underestimate the impact of that fire.

The fire exposed the poor relationship between the local community and the Glasgow School of Art. It is important to point out to the minister that that relationship had been poor for a long time. Muriel Gray is on the record as acknowledging that. That situation can never be allowed to happen again. Such an important institution, sitting in the middle of the residential community of Garnethill, needs an excellent on-going relationship with local people. Thirty-three businesses were devastated by the Glasgow School of Art fire and they still struggle today.

Like Rachael Hamilton, I thank the 120 firefighters who fought the blaze. They are to be commended for their stamina and expertise in fighting that fierce and enormous fire. However, if we ask the residents and businesses whether there was an adequate response from authorities, they tell us that they felt abandoned by them. We must learn lessons, not just about what caused the fire—we are still to learn that—but about the conduct of the authorities during it. One reason why the committee report is so important and its questions so critical is that, if we ask local people now whether they feel safe in their homes—knowing that there have been two fires in the Glasgow School of Art—they say that they do not. Therefore, it is fundamental, especially for those people, that there is accountability for the fire and that we see the fire service report on what caused it.

The committee report, in what it established regarding the run-up to the fire, is damning of the Glasgow School of Art. I support the call for a public inquiry. It is essential. It is disappointing that we do not yet have the fire service report. I am sure that there are good reasons for that, but I thought that we would have had it by now. At the least, we should know the barriers to the conclusion of the report. Access to the site has been difficult, but, 16 months on, we need an indication of when the report can be expected.

There were serious fire risks associated with a building of this nature. A key part of the committee report identifies the special measures that should have been taken and must be taken with a building of this kind. Lessons were not learned between the two fires. Like Rachael Hamilton, I was astonished to read in the committee report that the Glasgow School of Art was not in a position to determine whether, on the night of the fire, the fire alarm system was switched on. I had to check three or four times that I had read it correctly. Somebody must be held to account for that. How is it possible for the leadership team of Glasgow School of Art to tell the committee or anyone else that they did not know whether the alarm was switched on? It beggars belief.

There should be no question in the minds of the leadership team of Glasgow School of Art. When it came to the governance of Glasgow School of Art, the committee did not mince its words. It said explicitly that the leadership team did not give sufficient priority to safeguarding the Mackintosh. That must give ministers serious concerns. Notwithstanding what the minister said about the school of art being the guardian of the Mackintosh, it is a public institution. There must be ways in which ministers can say that they are not satisfied that the leadership team are the correct custodians of the Mackintosh building. It is a public institution and those people have to be accountable. The lack of transparency regarding the measures that they took in 2014 is another astonishing fact brought out by the committee’s report. It is unbelievable.

You would think that, after one fire, the leadership team would be able to come to the committee and explicitly spell out what measures they were taking to make sure that it did not happen again, but they were unable to do so. When we read the committee report, it seems obvious that for a historic building such as the Mack, which had a dual function, there should have been additional support and guidance, in recognition of the additional fire risk.

There are odd elements to the story. The fundraising strategy for a mist sprinkler system, which was a necessity and not optional, gives a strange message to the public about funding fire safety measures. To me, the leadership’s strategy was all over the place, because there must have been another way to raise funds for a system that was essential in order to protect the building. Like Adam Tomkins, I believe that there has been a complete lack of leadership and I am dissatisfied at the lack of answers that we have received.

There has been a catalogue of errors. We still do not know why Tom Inns suddenly departed. It is a public institution, so ministers should be asking why he left the Glasgow School of Art and why that happened so suddenly. Also, why are six staff members signing confidentiality agreements? What is the confidential information that they are protecting? Why were there pay-outs totalling £210,000? The dysfunctionality at the top of the institution should be unacceptable to ministers and Parliament, and it is certainly unacceptable to the general public.

We need to have answers. It is an institution that we all love. We want it to have a future and it must have a future. The public must be involved in the design and the community must be involved in all of it, but before we get to that stage we must have answers, as soon as possible, as to why we are in this situation.