Hansard

As a member of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee, I am pleased to have been called to contribute to this afternoon’s debate on our committee report, entitled “The Glasgow School of Art Mackintosh Building: The loss of a national treasure”. The committee approached the matter on a non-partisan basis, so I was a bit disappointed by Mr Tomkins’s tone, but that is up to him. Members, on a cross-party basis, felt an incredible sense of loss, which has underlain our work on the matter. That incredible sense of loss was our key motivation in examining what happened and what must happen going forward, to ensure that lessons are learned.

I take this opportunity to thank the committee clerks for all their sterling work in producing a very comprehensive report, which was published on 8 March 2019. I believe that we have set forth fairly in the report the evidence that was received, and that we reached conclusions and made recommendations without fear or favour, which is as it should be.

Our key recommendation, which has been referred to already in the debate, is that the Government establish a public inquiry once the SFRS has concluded its investigation. I was pleased to note from the minister’s comments earlier that a public inquiry has not been ruled out. The need for a public inquiry is quite clear, given the significant number of disparate and important strands that are covered by the committee’s report—both as far as the Mack building is concerned and as far as the wider issues that have been raised about historic buildings that are national treasures are concerned. It became quite clear that, in that regard, we need to look at the role of Historic Environment Scotland in general terms and in the context of restoration works particularly. It is regrettable that in the case of the Mack, there appears to have been an arm’s-length approach. That did not help.

I turn to the Glasgow School of Art’s board—the custodians of that most precious of buildings. It has to be reiterated that they presided over not just one, but two catastrophic fires. The first was on 23 May 2014 and the second was on 15 June 2018. The obvious question that arises is this: what lessons did they learn after the first catastrophic fire? The committee did its best to ascertain exactly that, but there was, sadly, a lack of clarity. For example, it was very difficult to get to the bottom of why a water-mist suppression system had not been fully installed by 2014, even although it was agreed in 2008 to proceed with installation. As we have heard, the GSA’s board stated that fundraising was needed, although it is not clear why the non-core Scottish Funding Council sums of about £198,000 per annum that were awarded for heritage purposes could not have been used. How, in fact, was that money spent? Did it go towards purchase of new buildings instead of heritage purposes? That is not clear and must be clarified.

Aside from the fundraising issue, the GSA board also stated that it was subsequently discovered only in July 2013 that there was a problem with asbestos that required to be dealt with prior to installation of the water-mist suppression system. Why was that discovered so late in the day, given that fundraising for the project commenced in 2009? A full technical survey should surely have been conducted during consideration of the project in order to determine what needed to be done. Such a survey would have informed the decision on the amount of money that needed to be raised.

Questions arose about whether proportionate measures were taken by the board on risk management and on transparency of information, including itemisation of items that were lost from the collections in 2014 and 2018 and their value.

In that regard, there were also questions about the insurance cover that was in place. In committee on 15 November, I asked that a copy of the current insurance policy be made available. Representatives of the GSA said that they would make the policy public, but subsequently refused to do so. Therefore, we have no idea what cover is in place, the conditions that are set forth in the cover, the value of the cover, whether the policy will be paid out in full or at all, and when the policy will be paid out. That is simply not acceptable—not least because the public purse paid the insurance premiums.

It is vital that we get to the bottom of all that. The Mack was not only a national treasure, but was of significant international importance. In examining the facts that we have been able to unearth thus far, it is really difficult to see how it would be possible to sustain the dual purpose of the Mack as a functioning art school and a museum. Calls have been made to set up the Mack as a public trust. With the facts that are available to us today, it is difficult to see how that position would not be preferable to the status quo.