 Rwy'n debyg. Welcome to the 29th meeting of the committee in 2018. I'd like to remind members and the public to turn off mobile phones and any members using electronic devices to access committee paper should please ensure that they are turned to silent. I'd like to welcome Sandra White MSP to the committee and Pauline McNeill MSP to the meeting. Since this is your first meeting with us Pauline, do you have any gwyllus y bydd ar gael. I doent. Thank you very much. Our first item on the agenda today is an evidence session with representatives from the Glasgow School of Art, and I'd like to welcome to the meeting Muriel Gray, the chair of the board of governors, Professor Irene McHara McWilliam, deputy director for innovation at the art school, and Liz Davidson, the senior project manager of the Macintosh building restoration. I would like to invite Dr Gray to make a short opening statement. Thank you very much, convener, and thank you very much, committee. There's no need to introduce my colleagues since you've done so eloquently. Can I just thank you all, convener and committee, for this opportunity? It's been incredibly useful because all the questions that you've rightfully been asking actually have run completely in parallel with the audit that you would expect us to be doing. So this is really helpful. Thank you. It's a great opportunity for us to speak about the Glasgow School of Art and our Macintosh building and our commitment to it and our approach to its management and its conservation and restoration and now, of course, the rebuild, but also to the significant and the very important contribution both the Glasgow School of Art and the Macintosh building make to Glasgow and indeed Scotland's national cultural identity and creative impact. Because we're without doubt experiencing one of the most difficult periods in our schools' proud history, but despite that challenge, we really are continuing to meet our responsibilities to our staff and our students and meet their educational needs and also, of course, to Scotland by delivering on our commitments that are detailed in our Scottish funding council outcome agreement. We are fully aware of the disruption and the impact on our local community and I particularly want to express our deep gratitude to our neighbours, the residents and businesses for their long-standing, understanding patience and continuing dialogue, which is on-going. We're also, of course, extremely grateful to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to Police Scotland, Historic Environment Scotland, Glasgow City Council for all their professionalism and support. There has always been significant public interest in the Macintosh building, so it's understandable, obviously, that people want to know what happened and, importantly, what's going to happen next. The widespread rumours and speculation following the fire in June are also totally understandable following the 2014 fire and I can assure the convener and the committee that absolutely nobody wants answers more than we do. What we do know is that the cause of the 2014 fire was accidental, but we, like absolutely everybody else, do not know the cause of the second fire and speculation about this really isn't being that helpful or supportive to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Services on-going investigation. However, what we do know is that we took every step possible above and beyond the standard in specifying the contract terms, including fire precautions for the Macintosh building restoration project. Far from complacently standing back, we maintained day-to-day supervision of the project works, both on-site and off-site. The tragedy is, of course, that just before this fire, the contractor was doing an absolutely stunning and beautiful job and the project was on time and on budget. We had just been about to return for our staff and our students and, importantly, for the people of Glasgow, not one of just the world's most important buildings, but one of the most seminal buildings which to study art and design and architecture for everyone to visit and to be part of. We recognise the interest and concern of the wider community both across Scotland and beyond as to what happens next and particularly the interests of this committee in that question. The board and the staff are completely clear about the importance of the Macintosh building to the educational experience of our students and to its contribution to the global position of Glasgow in Scotland's cultural and creative identity, which is so important. This is a position that has been reinforced, as you know, by many of the contributors to this committee's discussions, which has been very helpful. Glasgow School of Art, therefore, is clear and very strong in its resolve to restore the Macintosh building to its rightful place at the centre of our education and to the city as an open and accessible working school of art. As custodians of the Macintosh building, I'm sure you can see that's why we do not apologise for telling you over and over again that determination and that commitment. A written submission, which we hope you've all got, is as comprehensive and detailed as we can with the accompanying documents. I'm absolutely delighted to answer any questions arising from those. Or indeed, if there's any appendices that you feel are missing, we can also supply those later on. Thank you, convener. Thank you very much, Dr Gray, and I take this opportunity to thank you for coming today and also to thank you for your extensive written submission, which has certainly kept us all busy over the last few days. Thank you for that. In your submission on page 13, you say that we have always taken fire precautions seriously across our whole estate. In the course of our evidence gathering, our committee has heard from Alexander Kidd, who is an independent fire safety expert who chaired the UK working group on protecting historic buildings. He said that he visited the art school with Historic Scotland in 1997. At that time, comments were made and discussions were had around the void, the ventilation ducts that Macintosh had designed. Of course, we know that in 2014, the fire report said that these ventilation ducts and other voids were the reason why the fire accelerated. They were identified in 1997. Your own report, the federal report, which the Glasgow School of Art commissioned in 2006, identified those ventilation ducts as a serious hazard. That report said that the art school was at high risk of fire spreading. That was more than 20 years ago. When we heard from your architects two weeks ago, they told us that those ducts still hadn't been blocked at the time of the 2018 fire. Why was that? With your permission, can I pass that over to Liz Davidson, who is the expert on voids? I've become an expert on voids even more so, I think. You're quite correct if we go back to, I think, Stuart Kidd, his report from his submission to the... Alexander Stewart, I believe. Sorry, I've got my... I think he uses both things. His report talks about the federal report, you're quite correct. The ducts that are the voids, whichever that he talks about, were in the building from the start, it was part of Macintosh's system for bringing air through the building and for taking services up through the building. It wasn't that they were known about from 1993 or 97 or earlier or later. They were always there and always part of this building. The federal report is effectively our response at the time to a whole series of things in the building to upgrade the building's fire safety at that point. In 2006, the initial report was commissioned from Bureau Hapel Services Engineers, but the report that you referred to in 2008 was the result of that. What it pointed out was quite clearly, in the conclusions of that report, that, as with pretty well any historic building of Sydney, Victoria and Edwardian era, where you had services, if you go back much earlier, you don't have pipes running and taking electricity or whatever. The building was full of cavities, voids, what they call stand-offs. I think in his report, in his writing extensively for Historic Scotland, he did talk about the fact that this is part of how the building operates and breathes and talks about how you actually use these voids in a building to take services and rises through it. Even today, that would be the practice historic environment Scotland would approve. So, yes, these areas within the building, which were not just rises, were not just ducks, but were cavities behind Latham Plaster, behind Panelling, were known about. The response to that from the school or taking the advice of Bureau Hapel, the advisers and experts of the time, were to actually fire, install a fully engineered fire system. So, it wasn't just clog the building up, close all the cavities. We didn't even know all of them. Can I just interrupt you there? I'm sorry, because in that report, it said that you made a decision not to firestop the voids and they say in the report, this is not their recommendations, they say that the client requirements are that a major intervention in the building fabric to create compartmentation would be extremely unlikely to be authorised. So, I'm assuming for conservation reasons, you didn't want to block these ducks because that's kind of what the architects, Page and Park said in relation to 2018 that it was a conservation project and that was another reason why they didn't block firestop them. The federal report wasn't a conservation project at all. It was all about the safety of the building. There was no instruction from Glasgow School of Art to not stop voids. In fact, some of them were stopped after that report and even before that report. So, there are over 130 ducks. There are many, many more voids in the building that we didn't even know about until, in fact, after the fire in 2014, when it revealed areas of the building, we didn't know even had these voids. So, there was no instruction from Glasgow School of Art not to do it. In fact, the instruction was, as part of a fully engineered fire system, those are areas that would be stopped or dampened or partially, automatically, stopped as and when. There are multi-fairies kinds of voids, but the two main ones in the building and what was involved in 2014 or part of what was involved in 2014 was the fact that we had timber risers that took services up the building. That's totally common. You'll have risers in this building and in any building. Those voids were and are still serving that building. What we are installing, we have stopped some, we have put dampers through others, we have automatic closers on others. You can't stop the building immediately. You have to do it when you're putting in the work itself, so that was happening after 2014. Some had happened previous to 2014 as well. Some of the redundant ones have already been stopped, as I say. Others weren't known about but that was part of the federal report was to actually put in a fully engineered system, which is to say you can't close up every void, especially ones you don't know about. What you do is put in, amongst other things, a mis-suppression system was what the school then embarked on in fundraising and putting into the building on the eve of the 2014 fire. Sadly, it wasn't completed. On the fire suppression system, again, so we didn't stop the voids because they caused the 2014 fire and they hadn't been stopped by 2018. Going back to the federal report, you said that you chose a fire suppression system at that time. Again, it's a long time ago. Why did it take so long? In both the 2014 and the 2018 fire, the fire suppression system hadn't been installed? Just to come back on one thing, the void into 2014 didn't cause the Scottish Fire and Rescue report. It was very clear that it was an accident and the cause was a project and expanding for them. Technically, if that had happened in the middle of the room, we would still have had to go to the second part of the school. That fire report, and I've read it several times, is very clear about the importance of the voids that acted like chimneys and had been left unstopped. The fact that it occurred at the base of a void and it was one of the risers that hadn't been stopped, as opposed to one that had been stopped, instead of horizontally at that point. It moved in a different way. We don't know what caused the fire this time of course because we haven't had the report yet, so the voids may have had no role in this at all. The question you asked about the timing, I think, was answered in Page and Park's report, but in 2008 we had the report that this was the recommendation from experts to put in, very unusually, and most historic buildings, most public buildings will not have any kind of fire suppression system in them still. The Glasgow School of Art decided to take that step, unusual amongst probably most university campuses, I would say, in Scotland, to put that in. The first thing we had to do was to fundraise, and that was something like two and a half years of fundraising to achieve that once we have a system then to design it and then to get statutory approval, as you say, from both our own city council and their listed building department and Historic Environment Scotland. I think that the tender was let being approved, and the contractor on site shortly after that. In terms of the fundraising, at that time you spent £50 million on campus development, including the new reed building. People will wonder why you couldn't afford a fire suppression system immediately after this report showing that the building was high risk when you spent £50 million building the reed building. I want to talk about the reed. This is obviously before our time, so we just have to go on the historic facts that we know. It was a major concern of the governing body and the management at that time, which is... I believe that we were not eligible for heritage lottery funding at that time because only for repairs, is that correct? It wasn't necessary either, even though it was amped. The school was doing it as a built embraces approach and the fundraising was successful. As Liz has said, it was in the process of being fitted before the 2014 fire. You all said that the committee knew why it had been halted. It was because asbestos had been found in the opening, so it was only temporarily halted. Yes, but you said that it was a very complex system. Sprinkler systems may not be according to Historic Scotland's own advisory documents on historic building. Sprinkler systems are quite common in historic buildings, but you ruled out a Sprinkler system in favour of a mis-suppression system. Why was that? We weren't permitted to use a standard Sprinkler system because it was a grade A listed building. It contained Macintosh artefacts that were being destroyed by water. That's why we were refused permission to put in a normal standard Sprinkler system. The only other alternative was a mis-suppression system that was relatively new, but that was the best one. That was approved by Historic Environment Scotland as being safe to use so if someone sets off a toaster, you don't ruin half of your heritage. Who didn't give you permission for the Sprinkler system? In the original Federal report you ruled out the Sprinkler system on the grounds of aesthetics because of the large pipeworks and so on. You favour the mis-suppression system because it's less intrusive because it's got smaller nozzles and things like that. That's an issue but it was also more protected. You had decided on the mis-suppression system which didn't have a British standard at that time. It was untried. Can I remind the committee of one thing that Glasgow School of Art, the Mactress building was a fully compliant building at the time of the first accidental found 214. If it hadn't been compliant already with every fire safety regulation in the land we wouldn't have been able to have students in it. It wasn't a building that was inherently dangerous or too dangerous to occupy. It was already met every standard. We had fire alarms. We had every fire extinguisher. We had already met it otherwise nobody could have gone through the door. Muriel says that it was a belt and braces approach and not many buildings have been closed. If you look at university campuses we would probably, both with the reed the stove when it comes on a stream and the Mac when it would have come back and will come back is probably about 70 per cent of our estate. I would challenge a survey of states around Scotland of academia historic public building to see more than about 5 or 10 per cent of states. GSA is going way beyond. I understand your point about the sprinkler as opposed to misuppression. The list of building consent is concerned about aesthetics. It's not to make it sound a frippery. LBC is about affecting the character of a listed building. Historic Environment Scotland or our own building control department or our own conservation department would have been concerned about how much damage it would have caused if it had been in the system which wasn't British standard approved at an early stage before asking for permission. It had approvals because it is in use otherwise it was more at that point near marine environment it was used in it has full compliance and it wasn't a standard system. It says in your report that that was one of the problems with them. With it, that was its downside it wasn't compliant there weren't that many people and it didn't have a standard. It is a compliant system it is a kit of parts so as we know from very long discussions with both makers in Denmark in our case and FM approvals BS, BA approvals we had a compliant system that would have been put in otherwise we wouldn't have had a building warrant we couldn't have put in a system that didn't meet compliance but it has possibly around 24, 2, 2, 3 different types of between heads, pipes, valves, pumps you have to put the whole system together and that becomes the compliant system the system was being put into the Mackintosh was an extraordinarily bespoke system because of the extraordinary bespoke nature of the building and it was to protect its aesthetics but also very importantly and I think it is in our report we didn't have the water to put in a sprinkler system a sprinkler system uses about a tank size that would have drained down Garnet Hill so we were not allowed from Scottish Water and we had that in writing that we couldn't connect to what we call the town mains if we had done so well they wouldn't have allowed that connection we had to provide a tank in the building the only way to have done that under a sprinkler system would have taken out almost half the first flow and put in a swimming pool however what we had to do was make one work with the available water in fact in this scheme what we had to do was excavate down quite deeply into the ffons of the Mackintosh to achieve a tank that would make even a mis-suppression system which uses much less water we didn't have the option of using a sprinkler system we didn't have the water as if to do so okay you ruled out a sprinkler system for the store building as well didn't you no sprinkler systems being put into the store building but you did rule it out initially didn't you no I can answer that from the governance point of view we didn't rule it out we had to examine it because part of our job as governors is to be ffiscally prudent as well as safety so we had a look at what the store building would mean it would have been fully compliant again for fire safety without a sprinkler system so we looked at that but the extra cost of putting a sprinkler system came in about 1.3 million and after some discussion we decided that we would put it in it's just on your board papers that says you decided to put it in after the Grenfell fire have you changed your mind yeah no no I crossed it completely we had many discussions and we had discussions pre Grenfell as well after Grenfell we had decided that that was going to be the safest course forward it wasn't a handbrake turn okay thank you very much clear baker thank you convener we've had a number of panels in front of us about Glasgow art school and we have also received a number of emails from interested parties it's fair to say there's a degree of conflict and claims and counter claims around now it's difficult for us part of our job here is to determine and try and make some judgement on some of the factors that have been involved in the two fires why do you think there's this level of conflict and that the committee are hearing different versions of what happened why do you think it's an issue with culture of the college and what's added into that is the recent resignation of the director it would from the outside appear particularly happy ship at the moment why do you think we're receiving these kind of why do you think we're in this situation I can't answer that I'm afraid I think these are minority views we've had the opposite we've had many emails and letters and personal messages of support we are collegiate and strong and there are a number of individuals I know that have voiced their own opinion and speculation none of them are facts though as you can see from our I think quite comprehensive speculation submission I can't answer that I don't know what the issue is with the emails I don't know which ones you're referring to I think anything that's been presented as evidence to the committee has been answered in our submission but personal things online I don't know it's all I can say I'm extremely happy place right now and I can assure the committee that in fact it's a great opportunity to thank the astonishing staff and management the directorate and the students and the board as well for five months of absolutely amazing hard work which they have done together with great courage and comradeship so that's not the impression that we get is it possible to say a bit more about the resignation of Professor Tom Innes he's resigned at quite a critical time we're now in a situation where we're having people move up to that role in temporary positions so there's a question of our leadership at the college at a time where obviously you're facing a very difficult situation yes well let me completely reassure the committee there isn't a problem of leadership just now because we have Professor McCarmac Williams who's one deputy director and Professor Paul who's another deputy director have stepped up into that post and are running the art school very beautifully and this Monday of course all the students went back into the accommodation that was pre 2015 fire sorry 15th June it's all back running fine I can't say very much about Professor Innes' resignation other than the statement that he's made to the public and a response to it we've thanked him very much because I cannot think of a principal who's had to deal with a tenure as difficult as Professor Innes had you know two major disasters within five years and he has left us at a time when everything has been put back into place after five months of extremely hard work for which we're very grateful and have said so publicly okay can I ask some questions around the fire safety plan so we took evidence from the contractors around this part of the evidence said that the fire safety plan was dynamic and required signing off at multiple stages and with a fluid document I've seen some of the reports and it's in your own evidence you've submitted to us about visits and various other events that happened and staff moving out of the building and offices changing what would be how the document was dynamic and the factors that would change the document and how much involvement did the board have on oversight of this? The board had a lot of oversight of this but again that's before you can see the minutes from the various committees we had a Macintosh restoration committee and that reported directly into the board Liz and her team were of course on site and she can speak a little bit more about that, about the visits particularly but I can assure the committee absolutely 100% that visiting the Mac site which was a construction site was absolutely thoroughly procedural heavy you did not get into the Macintosh without going through the absolute proper procedures and that was ensured both by Cure and by the GSA So would that be a factor that would then change the fire safety plan or what would be the factors? Why would it be a dynamic document? What would be the... Liz can explain that but that's not sorry, yes I suppose the main reason it would change and it has to be a dynamic document if you recall after the first fire we actually lost not just the library but for instance the roof of the entire east side of the building sorry the west side of the building so obviously you had an open air structure at that point within in fact a canopy structure a scaffolded roof over it that got roofed so eventually that would been brought back in with fire detectors underneath the new ceilings etc where we didn't have ceilings before things like that meant that they would review the fire plan and say at this point now we have a new fire stop in here we have a new fire door because we now have a compartment we now have a room so it had to move along with that chain of events as the site progressed really and just finally for myself there's been discussion around whether the art college prior to 2014 and whether its future might be as a suitable building for a working modern art school and if we look at the cause of the 2014 fire whether it was appropriate that that type of creative activity was happening in that type of building do you accept those or how do you feel about that debate do you accept those concerns and the future plans I know you're committed to a rebuilding of the art college and if that is the way you end up going is there a consideration of what actually takes place in that building in terms of operating as a working art school there's no debate from our point of view about it being a working art school that's how it was designed it's worked beautifully for a hundred years as that I don't want to be rude or to interrupt but it's worked beautifully but the cause of the first fire was I understand a student's work that hasn't been appropriate for the work to happen in that type of building no it seemed completely appropriate for it to happen what happened was the individual involved did not follow instructions and had they followed instructions that type of work is completely appropriate and safe and has been for many years the accident as outlined in the SFRS report shows it was a perfect storm of somebody not doing what they were inducted to and told to several times not to the work had nothing to do with it that kind of work has been going on for years in the art school to answer your second point there is no question at all that this building is a working part of the art school and in fact if you talk about our remate which is to deliver creative education the Macintosh building itself is more than a building it's actually a tool of learning for the students who come to our school of art so you cannot separate it but there is an argument put forward or there's been discussion around as we have the role of historic Scotland it is more than an art school it's a building of significance to the whole of Scotland so there are questions about whether the art school is the two parts whether it's the right body to go forward with the project and also whether it's the right activity to take place in that building but except that's not a view that you share no I absolutely disagree with your second view of course it has to be a working art school whether the art school are the right people to be the custodians of it yes absolutely we've been very useful custodians you cannot separate the two it will always be part of our academic plan it will always be part of the DNA of the art school in fact I'd probably like to bring Professor McWilliam here about this and it's a major part of us connecting with the city it's not a museum it's a beautiful important iconic building but one of the reasons it's so important it is because it has been a working art school for this time and I can testify to that because I was lucky enough to study in it and of course a new rebuild will not have the patina that people like myself have built up over the last 100 years but I tell you something when all of us in this room are long gone in another 100 years it will have its own one and it will be the same building and it will have the same effect and the most wonderful creative inspirational ideas on the people who are lucky enough to study in it I don't actually like to say something Professor if I may may I add to that quite a number of members who have quite a lot of questions I just asked because the McIntosh being a learning tool is a really major part of what we're discussing today since the 2014 fire we endeavored to bring back the McIntosh that would serve the educational needs of our students and our future students and our intention was to house in that building all first years so anybody coming to Glasgow to Glasgow School of Art to study from Glasgow from Scotland or internationally would be welcomed into the art school in the McIntosh building and would become extremely proficient in that particular legacy and would be able to take that with them as a cultural ambassador for Glasgow School of Art in Glasgow when they finished their studies they would be immersed as we all know in a building of extreme, significant beauty and function and from the papers that have been supplied it was noted that in the review of our estate it was still the most functional building not only the most aesthetically beautiful talking to our creative industries and contributing to the creative economy it was the most relevant building and will remain so and therefore why would we deny current and future generations of students the ability to have the experience that is so deeply lodged in people's minds and is reflected in some of the statements that have been submitted to the committee we are educators and we want high quality education and that's what we are about that's why we want to bring back the McIntosh to that very specific function that Charles Rennie McIntosh designed it for Ross Greer Thank you, convener I'd like to return to the convener's questions around the fair suppression system I understand completely how immensely complex it is to install a fair suppression system in a building of that kind I'm a bit concerned around the financial decisions that were taken so the need to fundraise for it I wonder if you'd be able to explain why for example the SFC Museum's grant which at that point in time was around £200 grand a year there was a lottery grant for conservation in 2008 why were other funds that were already being received by the school of art not put into funding a fair suppression system as a matter of priority because it seems the delay required to raise additional funds created a delay that has unfortunately led to this because the suppression system wasn't ready I don't think that I don't accept the premise of the question that led to the fire for start so I think that's incorrect The delay did not lead to the fire but if the fire suppression system had been in place it would not have been the fire it was but the fire would have been in place if we hadn't uncovered the asbestos so your timing is slightly wrong to be clear at the point that you decided that there needed to be this fire suppression system you then had to embark upon a fundraising campaign for it if you had instead allocated funds you would not have had to spend a couple of years fundraising you could have immediately begun installing that system you would have discovered the asbestos but two years before you actually did the fire suppression system would have been in place two years before this fire took place and when the fire took place in theory the suppression system would have suppressed it so why were funds that you were already receiving not prioritised for the suppression system? I'm afraid I'm not able to ask that because I wasn't in office at that time but from everything that we've read it seemed to be a very cohesive and sensible approach to that that's all I can say it was economics and it was as Liz has pointed out the building was completely safe this was a belt and braces approach that was being put in by the previous administration to further ensure absolute top-notch five-star, gold-star standard fire protection but it was already safe could I also add that you're quite correct those applications to funders which involved Historic Environment Scotland or Historic Scotland at the time HLF and other funders, ERDF had been made it was for a conservation and access project I'm sure most members will know when you apply to any body a public sector in particular you can't then say thanks for the money we're going to spend it on something else even if you feel that that may be more important than what you've asked for the money for it your approach they were asked they have been amazing partners throughout the whole of the Mackintosh conservation projects over three decades now in fact funding it but they would not have been able as I understand legally to have switched money for what they have by statute laid down to put into the repair and conservation of buildings and move it into mis-suppression systems by dint of their remit they repair but they don't add to a building so I think it probably I'm not speaking just for HES particularly now to a lot of applications for money from the public post to put mis-suppression through thousands and thousands your own properties and all of these buildings so we couldn't switch the money once having signed those contracts with those particularly public sector bodies The word here is enhancement that was an enhancement to the building rather than a necessity and that's again why I presume the administration at that time had to fundraise I'm still not completely clear particularly in the case of the SFC regular museums grant but I accept that if you were not imposed at the time then it would understandably be a difficult question to answer at the moment in that case I think the committee would benefit from a written response at some point in the near future Your board papers from before the 2018 fire refer to a dispute with the insurers over the fire suppression system would you be able to detail to the committee what this dispute is? I'm not quite sure which one you're referring to Mr Greer could you be more specific? It's in the papers of a board meeting from before the fire it mentions now I don't think it mentions in any particular level of detail which is why we're interested but it mentions some kind of dispute some kind of issue between the insurers and yourselves regarding the fire suppression system Casting fire back into my board minutes there was a point at which this whole process has been incredibly closely followed to say the least by our insurers obviously particularly since 214 but the school had more than one insurer the main insurer at that time was Royal Sun Alliance who behaved wonderfully after the first fire but we also had another insurer which was AXA insurance and that was for contents and that mainly we maintained still the archive of Glasgow School of Art within the Macintosh building and that required a different kind of system that would still have involved water a lot of museums I think the national library will still have areas where water seems to be a bigger risk than fire i.e. with paper mainly you'd normally use a hypoxic system which is to take the oxygen out of that area so there was a discussion between both areas of the insurers at that time and their specialist advisers about whether we went for an entirely wet system and a mist or one that zoned out the building and in the end we did decide in fact to go with the entire suppression system with a low pressure mist system but it was it was worth taking their advice and hearing it and then taking it back to our own learning and teaching people as well and finding out what would be the best system so is this what the insurer was then questioning this year why those decisions had been made in regard to what particular suppression system was used right I don't know about the paper from this year from after the 218 fire but it's a board paper from this year that mentioned this dispute so I understand what you're saying around the questions over which suppression system to use the question therefore then still stands what was raising concerns with the insurer why were they dispute might be the wrong word for it though I think that might be the word in the minutes I can't quite recall was any dispute at all with our insurers dispute process so far there's been discussions as Liz has pointed out between the how and the what and the where for but I don't recall any dispute whatsoever with insurers we will check both papers and provide a written if you can be very specific about the particular paper we will totally tell you back to you papers from October 2017 the committee noted the latest register it would notice that the risk of programmably resulting from uncertainty and conformation of the fire suppression system had now receded given the progress made in discussions with the contractor and the insurer I think a lot of people would be quite surprised that you were still you had only just settled this disagreement with insurer in October 2017 which I think there was well over a year after Cair were awarded the contract it wasn't a disagreement convener it was just an ongoing discussion the risk register is very thorough that audit is very thorough about risk register so that was just merely the conclusion of those discussions there wasn't any dispute okay thanks very much Tavish Scott thank you can I just ask a couple of supplementaries convener to Rosgris line of questioning the first line of questioning there just so I understand this properly the building after the first fire there was a known vulnerability to fire would that be fair to say in any building there's always vulnerability to fire yes just the same as any other institution no that's was there a greater vulnerability to fire let me just try to understand this building in particular we all live in lots of buildings did you assess there to be a greater vulnerability to fire in this building because of the voice because the questions the convener was asking to start in terms of lessons learned about the first fire yes of course we knew absolutely everything about the building in the previous years we had not known it was a real forensic that's fine entirely fair that's entirely fair so therefore the first line of questioning therefore wasn't it the first thing to be done in the new in the construction thereafter the reconstruction thereafter to build in a fire suppression system a mist system wasn't that the first thing to be designed in again I apologize that you weren't there I know you weren't there but that would have been the absolute number one thing to have done first thing up so you mean between the 2014 and the 2015 again I'm sorry to keep throwing this back at our technical expert but of course it was in our minds and and thus therefore back to the project this has come up in a very interesting way and I think this will have repercussions beyond the Macintosh beyond Scotland actually about in construction sites generally the issue of I think one of the submissions again Mr Kidd's submission in particular I think talks about this in detail about temporary or early commissioning of a fire suppression system in a building we had experts on our panel atelier 10 where our fire engineers the commissioning of that mist suppression would have been the very first it would have come on as soon as it was there but I really accept the question because the one thing I have been asked so many times since is exactly that and what I am a pain to say to everybody is it can't be commissioned until it's there so the very first thing was to agree a design for we had a different building all together after the 214 fire we didn't have roofs in some areas we were able to see where voids existed where we didn't know they had existed because of the fire but the putting in place of that suppression system was the first thing that would have been put on in terms of the building management so the joinker of practice much referred to about prevention of fires and construction sites is all about early commissioning as soon as possible and it's absolutely right so it's the first thing you do you don't bother painting the wall or laying the carpet because you've got the pipe work in the pump in the tank in and it's been pressure tested and it's ready to go you put that on five months ahead just forgive my ignorance here but it didn't actually happen did it it was probably 60% completed but no we had the tanks on site we had the tank being excavated and that had completed and the pumps were on site the pipe work was probably 60% completed it has to the installation of the pipe work has to follow the construction phase itself moving from west to east as where the fire had happened and moving into the active area the active area site was very much in the west it was moving east and into areas so in that sense your engineers didn't think there was anything more you could do I mean I know this is on hindsight but they didn't think in any way there was more that could be done to build in that system as early in the process as possible it was genuinely being built as it went along so those guys were working quite often after the main trades had finished they couldn't work on the same platforms but as soon as a room was finished the mis-suppression was following in behind it we'd come in on a Monday morning and that would have happened quite often because they would come in on weekends when the other wet trades or the dust trades or whatever had finished so they were moving very closely behind and here we're managing that very tightly so we had a big team that were just moving as quickly as they could to move through the building as soon as a room was finished or a flow was finished or the compound meditation was in place the mis-suppression would come in behind it but it's a very large site and something into a room would be fine but this was seven and a half thousand feet of space that we had to fit out with the mis-suppression system a very complex system and I can say to you that I don't understand what the problem was with money because at Rossgrove's questions were about why there was a delay in putting the system in and his line of questioning was you could have spent money earlier let's not bother about where all the money comes from but you could have spent money earlier you're arguing that actually the system went in from day one as the building was reconstructed so is that pre the 214 when we had what looked on paper like four years between somebody recommending a mis-suppression system in the federal report to installing it or not quite finishing the installation 214 we genuinely had to fundraise as after 214 we were working on the process of the insurance which was coming through and additional fundraising that we received from Scottish Government and UK Government as well so it was one of the absolute keystones of the brief that went out of the contractor in 214 was that the mis-suppression system and a fully engineered fire system would have been put into the building at the earliest possible point and commissioned as early as possible which is what the joint code of practice recommends and it would be fair to say that the fire and rescue service is looking into that exactly that that will be part of their assessment as to what actually happened they've not long since taken access but it is something that... thank you very much I want to switch to the losses to the collection Roger Macintosh society Evans said that GSA failed to open about the losses from the 2014 fire and said that your media release and blog focused on what had been saved in some losses rather than full extent of the losses so it's just to see whether there's a comprehensive public accessible list available there is yes absolutely totally and it was at the time and it's completely accessible and online and in the public domain okay because we've been told that staff have privately said they were prohibited from speaking about the full extent of the losses completely untrue right and everything has been detailed can I ask you what the insurance pay was for the items lost and how will this be spent because some of the items are obviously completely irreplaceable yes they are completely irreplaceable there were two separate insurance schemes at that point one of course was for the building and one was for the contents so at the time because as you say they're irreplaceable and priceless because we're also part of a working museum and we retain really important objects we also acquire so we have to have a fund for acquisition as well as protection and conservation so that money was ring fenced for that and we've had to really carefully examine that and we're by no means at the end of that process because of course the McIntosh rebuild has been interrupted but there is nothing to hide all of that is in the public domain and in fact the budget for that is also in the public domain if you're not clear with that with the appendices again I can easily provide you with that is there an easy link or something because it seems bizarre that people are telling especially if someone is a director with McIntosh society is telling us that they can't access the list of what's been lost and it's completely open so it would be good to find out what that was could I just add to that maybe just to come back to your point that that index was published and according to the details that I have here that that went online in 2014 but certainly was published to the media in 2015 because we had to detail the impact of the fire across our archives and collections and following that we provided the museums galleries Scotland with details of the collection losses just coming back to your question so that they could review if the McIntosh collection should retain its recognised status and they confirmed it still had that recognised status and that has all gone online all of the items are on the website so we did publish that in full and it was reported in the media okay well thank you very much for that just one final point convener in terms of items that are being replaced is there any timescale by which you're aiming to have such items replaced? we haven't yet addressed that I mean it's obviously on our list to do but you'll understand we're in a state of flux just now we've got other priorities but yes, we'll publish that as soon as we know there's nothing that is private or being kept from you at all everything that we know we make available in fact that's a remit to do so and as I say if there's anything missing really happy to provide a paper to back that up okay well thank you very much for that a short comment if I may we also continue to acquire for our collection of course and we are particularly keen on acquiring the brilliant work of our own graduating students who show the contemporary work that they're doing and for example I have acquired one or two pieces from our recent graduate on the 15th of June as it happens was our graduation ceremony and that was the newberry prize winner Erin Macquarie whose brilliant work will be part of our archives and collections so that's the kind of thing that we will keep on keep on doing thank you very much Annabelle Ewing thank you convener and good morning to the reps from Glasgow School of Art thank you for coming in so you talked earlier about reconstruction and I know that other members will want to focus on the future but in terms of reconstruction presumably that's dependent upon the existing buildings insurance policy in regard will you make a copy of that insurance policy available to the committee I said no you wanted to be open and so forth I think that's perfectly possible it's publicly funded who's the current building's insurance policy with you mentioned a previous insurer but I'm not sure if that's the same one it's not it's with the Lloyd's list effectively but it travels as the name of the company in terms of the actual approach of the insurance policy and these were questions I raised when we had Keir and others in it was suggested that to us before we had our meeting with Keir that you would expect after a catastrophic fire that what you would be having in terms of a renewed insurance policy would be not simply a policy reflecting conditions of a statutory minimum compliance if you like and conditions can you clarify whether your current building's insurance policy adopts that approach of add-on conditions so going beyond simply what minimum statutory requirements might have been in place can you be more specific about the add-ons I mean you I don't know I've not seen the policy we've not managed to get a copy of the policy yet so I'm a bit of a disadvantage but in terms of normal situations where you have a contractor going on site I understand that there will be statutory minimum requirements that the insurance policy must embody but one would have thought that after a catastrophic fire that there may well have been a consideration as to what supplementary add-on requirements might have been part of the package such that you would be showing that you would be using all your good offices to ensure that things were progressing in a reasonable fashion I think that's very much the case I wouldn't really describe it as add-ons but the insurance policy that we've put in place was so robust at this time and in fact I think Liz negotiated with Keir as well about the compliance when we handed that contract over so that would include what was within the insurance document I'm very happy to provide that with him Okay well that's great and for that's a really helpful and we'll look forward to receiving that I mean in terms of what may or may not be part of the requirements I note from various documents that in fact after the first catastrophic fire and before the second catastrophic fire there were various visits that you've seemed to arrange there was a whole host of people potentially milling about the site events organised individual visits can you clarify exactly what was going on can I just say in that regard when I spoke to Keir specifically about the position of who was on site so you know there was obviously Keir and his workforce then there were the specialist conservators and craftsmen and so forth but Keir was at pains to stress that there was only very few of those and that they were in fact subject to very stringent risk assessments and appropriate procedures and in fact Keir had to authorise those people being on site so what about all these other visitors that were kind of the act who was in charge of them and their activity well thank you for that question I'm delighted to answer that because the speculation the press has been very skewed and wrong and incorrect and there was nobody milling round for a start the interest in the Macintosh building has been enormous and our connection with the local community and the wider artistic and everybody else it's very important that throughout this process just so we're lonely months away from opening this absolute jewel that during the process which in itself was interesting and part of many research projects that we wished people to have access to it but again I'm going to hand over to poor Liz to explain the protocol for all those visits they were so strange and I can tell you that because I was at one of them as a member of the Glasgow School of Art Choir when we sang to raise money in the library and it's the first time I've ever had to sing soprano in full hard hat high vis and boots which is my excuse for being off key but there was nobody allowed onsite at all that did not go through thorough vetting procedure and induction, absolutely not the photographs that were in the press for instance they were showing people who had been through the process and were now in a safe area and were permitted to take off their hard hats we followed this to the rule Liz will talk you through that can I just clarify so presumably then there would be a register of all these visits and individuals there would be every single person that was on that site what about on the day of the fire the second catastrophic fire who was milling around on that day milling around who was onsite on that day were any of these visits, these individuals, these groups these school children I do take issue with the milling around there was no milling around on a construction site of such importance everybody as you see was documented all the visits were locked was there somebody there on the day that's my question of the second catastrophic fire well it was the day of the graduation so it would have to ask here that we were all at the Bute Hall there was no visits organised by the GSA on that day at all no so I'm sure a cure would be able to answer you the technical visits that day but as far as the GSA is concerned for that day it was a Friday so actually technically a lot of the contractors do stop work early on a Friday and I think we had the contractor itself would have finished probably about 2 or 3 o'clock that day there were no visits, in fact there were no visits that week at all and it was one of the very rare occasions so we do remember it that we had said to a group they couldn't go around the building and that was on the Tuesday so it happened to be the Charles Rennie Macintosh society who did think they were going in up until the point they arrived in the reed building where we assembled people and at that point we'd spoken with the contractor and on that day he'd said no there's too much going on and they wanted to get into the library and we couldn't let them into that part of the building there was too much physically going on so we instead Sarah McKinnon my colleague actually did a virtual tour of it so at something like 4 o'clock that day she went round and videoed the entire building and took it back and we did a demonstration of what was going on on site in the reed building in Electra Theatre that was on the Tuesday, that was the last public visit but I would average you're quite correct we probably had we didn't have over 100 individual visits probably far more, some of those were institutions some of those would have been things like building control or historic environment Scotland there were lectures, there were events occasionally, not often events but it was actually written in our tender so before Kea were even appointed that one of the things we were absolutely committed to in the tender process was to demystify construction to bring people into the industry to talk about the traditional skills and to spread the awareness of this extraordinary building and it was actually very much in furtherance of the Scottish Government procurement that we wanted that in the process that we wanted through the public contract Scotland to actually engage through the community benefit clause with the local community, with the wider community with an educated, interested community and we did have visits from America, Japan and from people across the road where it was safe to do so there was a very strict protocol and PPE and standards that had to be followed OK, well that's not really noted in terms of going back to the position I'm just finishing, convener of the insurance policy presumably you know there was no you know in terms of the actual conditions of the insurance policy all these events and visits and so forth were totally in compliance with the conditions and that they didn't vitiate in any way the conditions of the insurance policy and last question would be I had understood that after the catastrophic fire number one that the GSA had only a very limited base on site and in fact moved out at some point in 2018 but I also understand that in fact the GSA occupied many parts of the building including the janitor's house, the storage rooms Macintosh rooms and associated circulation spaces, toilets and other accommodation GSA also used kettos and cooking facilities on the site television and AV equipment were used is that accurate? We had the janitor's flat so our office there's four of us in the team and we had what was known as the janitor's flat which was still part of the non-active Sorry to interrupt but the storage rooms Macintosh rooms, associated circulation spaces toilets and other accommodation kettos, cooking facilities, TV, AV equipment sold out We were allowed to use the toilet It's true No, the toilets were part of not to be flippant at all of course Within the site, as you came in the door which has the accessible entrance there was the key site office which was the old shop of the GSA enterprises beyond that what was the old furniture gallery which was the meeting room and to the left hand side there was the janitor's flat and there was toilets which were within the care office there was a small kitchen every appliance within that pat tested but there was a kettle for sure but as part of their risk assessment of the site as part of GSA's own risk assessment every electrical appliance is pat tested or portable appliance tested so that there are no and that was done on a monthly basis so the kettle itself is not a problem having this on a customer There was also cooking facilities as well? No, I think they brought in bacon rolls So you think there's no cooking facilities on site on the part of GSA? No, none at all Can I just point out that one of the events was one of the only catered events? There's a microwave, I'm sorry but only one of the catered events that had to be in fact cold food and all the caterers had to be conducted It's been helpful to clarify that there was actually a microwave on site There was a microwave, yes Thank you very much Thank you very much, Alexander Stewart Can I talk about your robust fire alarm system that you talk about Dozens of false alarms that took place in the run-up to the blaze in June There was an average of three a week in February, March, April and May but there was none in the three weeks prior to the fire in June On the night of the fire there was no indication from neighbours that they heard any fire alarms within the facility or within the area So to your knowledge was the fire alarm ever disabled in your time? It would be turned off for hot works and that would be logged if you're working in a compartmentalised construction site that's standard practice but that has to be again I'm sorry Liz, the expert on this but that would be entirely logged so as for the fire alarm not going off that day we have no knowledge nobody does until SFRS and there were these number of false alarms occurring on a regular basis on average three a week Are you meaning in the Macintosh or across the whole estate? I think there were a few but that usually means that it's working I probably haven't got much to add we were occupying the building up until January of 2018 and there was a regular site test of that weekly test of that fire alarm not in evacuation when there were irregular ones where you had to evacuate the whole building and there was certainly accidental tripping of that alarm by things like the plasters were gone into an area and not informed the site agent on one occasion and dust got into on detectors that they hadn't capped or switched off so it is common practice when you have not all construction sites would even have a hardwired detection system anyway but where they do it is then implicit that you have to cover that alarm false activations obviously to the fire and rescue because that is troublesome so that was always engineered always found out in advance if possible if those works were going ahead once or twice I know that didn't happen because I myself was evacuated from the building Can I maybe go on to talking about investigations after the fire it's been reported on the fifth of November that the fire investigators were given access to the Macintosh building four months after the fire struck in June your submission talks about that there have been a number of site controllers in the intervening period so who was responsible for ultimately authorising fire investigators to access the building The square of fire and rescue have been with us from the start they had the site themselves for the first week and then after that it fell within the city council's safety cordon for the whole area we've had meetings with them at first it was weekly and then offsite monthly but we've been in almost weekly contact with them they take decision as to when it's safe for them to go on to that site so our role as owner of the building was to bring in a contractor Rygard in this case who have been steadily putting that building making it safer Scotland rescue visited on a few occasions I know before the date they took access but their own risk assessment has to say when they feel it's safe for them to go in after we had demonstrated that a particular area in particular they wanted to access first was safe how contractor was asked to make that area even safer by clearing a way through up to a certain point and then Police Scotland went in at that point but only after their own health and safety advisers had said it was okay into their own health and safety regs to go through the building Thank you Thank you Good morning panel Certainly Ilaron in your opening comments Dr Gray you said that the GSA took every step possible for the protection of the building and maintained day to day job oversight of the building Now the committee have received evidence that the insulation that was used was actually flammable Now why was combustible insulation chosen over non combustible products in such a high risk building Liz I need to sit in the middle The big flat roofs in the Mackintosh building the ones that fall over the main studios were being insulated so part of our commitment again at the outset before Cure were appointed was in the tender to achieve the highest level possible with the new listed building sustainability of energy efficiency et cetera so that ranged from a whole range of things from LED lighting to single glazing a single slimline glazing on the studio windows The roofs were one of the areas where we did decide to install not alter the profile not alter the appearance of it but to install rigid board insulation and it was a PIR insulation that was used which is perfectly legal safe in when used in accordance with the manufacturers instructions it's still on sale it's still the largest selling insulation that you would use for flat roof construction and if you go to any roofing contractor or technical advice note and this would be Historic Environment Scotland or Historic England they would say that you would use a rigid board insulation on a rigid roof different in other areas but where you have a flat roof what you have to do is then inspect that roof so you have to have something that is a solid board and you do this in loft insulation we did use rock wall mineral wall other areas we used other measures and other circumstances but on the flat roofs there's a rigid deck you have to use a rigid material so it is a PIR or a rigid board insulation system but certainly after the first fire I thought that any restoration works should have sought ways to ensure that any of the materials that were going to be used would have been the best possible particularly regarding the issue of the flammability of that particular product the majority of the build we were actually putting back into that building was timber that's far more flammable on the issue of insulation now on insulation as I said we were using a range of measures there so we did have mineral wall where it was up stands or cavities areas that we could use within the flat roof that is the manufacturer's spec there's nothing illegal about the use of this material following the manufacturer's instructions which is basically you don't allow oxygen into that space so it has been encapsulated space and in our case we had an inverted deck roof it had a mineral asphalt roof on top of it which is in line with its original detailing by Mackintosh in fact and that is a perfectly safe way to use that material a question just regarding some evidence that we received a couple of weeks ago and just regarding the actual building we were told that at the time the principal contractor retained possession of the site is that correct in terms of the rooms that yourselves possessed on site who retained the possession of those rooms the entire site is under care as part of the contract so we were there by the leave I guess so if that been the case then then how could they actually have that full possession if you were actually utilising the rooms how could they guarantee that the rooms that were being used were being done to the highest possible standards particularly regarding fire safety we were subject to the same rules as anybody else coming onto the site we had to have a CSCS card which is construction certification safety card for access to the sites of my entire team had that certification which Kea had been very keen that we had to go around we were inducted like anybody else we had to sign in if we went beyond that point in the site so as you come in the door there were rooms which were it's like having a port a cabin within the Harris fence of a larger site but we were subject to exactly the same rules as anybody else other than that and our rooms had to be pat tested and any equipment in it pat tested as well so we were like any other anybody else under the same control regime that Kea would have applied to anyone else coming in okay, okay, that's helpful, thank you thank you very much, Jamie Greene thank you convener, good morning panel it's very clear that there's a lot of passion on the panel for the school of art and that sort of leads me into looking ahead I think we've spent a lot of time looking back at the what ifs and the maybes and I think that's very relevant and our due processes which will have to be followed but also things important we have an open frank conversation about what next both for Glasgow and the community I would like to kick off by just asking what the panel's views are on this you've heard a real wide range a very broad spectrum of ideas and opinions on this, everything from comments such as it should be left as a ruin architectural ruins are among the most of objects in the world it's a fair point from one witness to others saying there's no argument for why you wouldn't rebuild the school as it was and other views who think that you can't rebuild the Mac because it won't bring back the historic building you'd just be getting something else given that there are such a wide spectrum of views do you have any personal views and also what would be the process of deciding what happens next I'd like to let you go to speak much starting in 2015 I was asked to set up a project that would decide what would be happening in 2019 when we reopened the Mac and I have in front of me that which I call Transformation Design for the Future and in it I stated that the Glasgow School of Art Macintosh building is in the heart of the campus the heart of the city of Glasgow and with that we were making a clear statement that we are Glasgow's art school and of course just known as the art school in Glasgow and we made we set our intention to say the past would be revealed, restored and intensified and would host a new form of creative practice that integrates, expands public, the work of the school when we look at our position now we would have been doing that if the Macintosh had opened in 2019 with our first year experience as we had planned for the future we've had discussions already right after the fire I gathered together a group of staff and started thinking about what the future could mean the remit actually remains the same the intent absolutely remains the same and where we would expand it is that we want to be intensively much more collaborative with the local community with the communities of Glasgow and with all of the projects on which we already work so our school of simulation and visualisation is looking at digital tools for school children we do exchange projects and work in fine art with Cuba we work with Garnet Hill community and so on the list is endless, we do a lot of live projects because that's the best way for students to learn about civic matters or industry and go out and start their own business incidentally in Glasgow so we want to set up with our partners and this is the discussion about how we're going to do this a set of engagements where we can shape that future collectively so I think we would answer that by saying we're not saying it's going to be X or Y or Z but collectively we can do the best for the art school that will also be the best for the city of Glasgow and I think the chair can attest to some of those discussions having already started yes absolutely thank you I'm so happy you've brought up the future because that's what we're looking to just now you know that our formal view you've asked for a personal view the formal view is unanimous of the board and the management of bringing back the Macintosh as a working art school as it always has been my personal view could not be stronger because I am lucky enough to have been a graduate who worked in that building and I don't think I could sleep at night if I was on watch when that ladder was pulled up behind me where I saw that Macintosh building not coming back and having be given to future generations to enjoy that privilege that I took for granted at the time but has changed my life out of all recognition which is why I agreed to do this job in fact going forward is about the most exciting thing at the moment I can think of because we are in discussions just now closely with Glasgow City Council and the community about how we can have a front for the Glasgow School of Art on Sucky Hall Street how we can spread out into the city and include everybody because although people who know where they are not everybody who comes to the city does so we have a big state strategy plan which we are just putting together now now that we have stabilised the school in terms of academic teaching for the next term and we will be sharing that with everybody and inviting everybody for consultation over that we recognise that as part of the creative industries which is so essential to the economic health of Glasgow and Scotland we are a major part of that and bringing back to Macintosh as a working art school and giving that gift passing that on is absolutely essential to us You probably had enough for me Very shortly but I suppose in working on this building over the last four years what we do know is Macintosh designed an art school he would have I'm sure given the money at the time like anyone else, a struggling architect he'd done the job asked but he designed an art school and it worked brilliantly for 115 years and we have a museum we have Scotland Street what I do want to say is that my discussions and I'm not going to pretend I have extensive discussions with every single person in that incredible part of Glasgow it's now part of an amazing regeneration initiative by the city we're going to be part of that filled with ex-students and people who teach or work or have lived there are people who want that building back as an art school and working for it and the only thing out of something that you can you can't really find a silver lining about what's happened here on this site but this is going to be a major project for Glasgow and for the city and what we do know from 214 is we have the skills in this country we had to go a bit further afield or one or two and we want not that to happen in the next phase we want to bring it all back the crafts and the skills and the people who put their heart into that project it was nine months away and it was looking extraordinary it would have been a wonderful place to have been this time in March but we can do that again and I think this will matter to Glasgow and to Scotland this project Can I add just to Ms Ewing's point is that in this next rebuild having people come in to this construction it's going to be a major part of some of our research projects having people from the city college in Glasgow apprenticeships and so on so we're wanting to use this construction as part of the learning process so yes, I mean we are Liz is right that there's no silver lining to it except the fact that we're not beaten by this at all, we're enthused again to try and make the absolute best opportunity out of a disaster Can I ask one question You have presided GSA as manager in their watch two catastrophic fires why should anyone have confidence it's not personal but why should anyone have confidence that that can be avoided in the future because it's not just once with respect, it is twice Thank you very much for giving that opportunity to point out there are two entirely different incidents one was an accident in a fully operational building in plain sight which was evacuated with procedures that were exemplary the Scottish Fire and Rescue report has documented that that gives me an opportunity to point out there's nothing redacted from that report contrary to one of your witnesses saying that the only redaction was that of the individual involved in the fire the second was a fire on a construction site in the possession of Kear in a non-operational building so the confidence that you can have in that intervening four years the art school was managed perfectly well competently and I would say rather magnificently given what we were about to deliver back to Glasgow that's why they should have confidence I suppose it's the definition of magnificence if there's a catastrophic fire that has seen the end of the building as we know it because unless you have any proof to the unless you have proof because we're here about facts that it was mismanaged we would be certainly very pleased to hear that you were in post and had the duty as guardian and we were guardians so do you have any evidence to I'm saying that you were in post as guardian and there have been two catastrophic fires so it begs the question in terms of future structures going forward perhaps it has been suggested is maybe the best way forward is to have the MAC separated out from the operational work of Glasgow School of Art and maybe that has been suggested maybe that is something to consider but I think in defence of my management and my boards which I've been overseeing the last four years they have been exemplary and there's no evidence to the contrary I would like to say a statement from the point of view of the staff of the Glasgow School of Art because we have been through a period from the 15th of June and we're now at the 15th of November to address the development of the Glasgow School of Art and we have confidence in that board so I'd just like to have that on record I'm keen to make progress Damien, are you finished your line of questioning now? Sorry I appreciate we've gone off in a tangent slightly and we have a fair question for Ms Ewing but could I come back to the future again which is my line of questioning and with permission of the chair one of my line of questions was around community engagement I'd be very happy to pass that on to Sandra White who's a local representative if that's okay but if I could just ask one further question I noticed in your initial response to my question around the future I think there's a lot of unanimity I can see around bringing it back as a working art school not just as a museum indeed there's not much left to be a museum it's indeed a ruin and you talk about the next rebuild and I think that's the phrase you use but you clearly weren't specific around the nature of what that rebuild may or may not be because we had said that this is probably one of the most well documented architectural buildings in the world now as a result of the 2014 fire and subsequent evidence that came forward to help with the last rebuild do you have any views as to whether you think we may see the building at least try to be rebuilt as it was being done before the 2018 fire or is there any sympathy with the notion that there should be a still working art school that is sympathetic to the work of Macintosh but not necessarily recreates what we were trying to recreate before the 2018 fire well I can answer that because obviously after the 2014 disaster we had massive consultation because of course we're a creative institution and wish to be creative and so we put consultation out not just locally and not just nationally but internationally even out of venison to the states to ask the architectural community and everybody else what they thought that should happen because there were a lot of voices saying perhaps Macintosh would have preferred you to build a new brand new building and we took that on board and we discussed it at great length and every avenue led us back to the idea that we had to just repair what had been damaged and we haven't changed that view at all which is why we said that from the start so that we could actually get on the intense complexities of even just what we're dealing with just now but I'd really like to remind you that Macintosh designed this building, he didn't build it or other people built it so we have the original Macintosh plans as he drew them so it is going to be a matter of not only joy to rebuild it from scratch it might not be from scratch as there are early days we might have some retaining, we don't know it's incredibly in its infancy but our intention is to bring it back exactly as Macintosh designed it that will be unique because you must understand that over the years there have been all kinds of bits and pieces done to the Macintosh that have rendered it not in its original state but now we know exactly how he designed it what a thrill for the people involved in that and again the community involved in that to do that from scratch so that's rather exciting because we are envisaging an absolute Macintosh building as he designed it Can we move on to Sandra White Thank you very much Good morning and thank you for being here today Obviously we have to look to the future but as has been said before, 2014 fire absolutely tragedy another one in 2018 absolutely unforgivable and you mentioned the fact that you'd suffered from the fires yourselves the people who live in that community have suffered terribly not just in 2014 but even more so in 2018 Some are sitting behind us here in the audience I have met them along with other elected representatives certainly when you talk about engaging with the community that is not the message I certainly got across from the local community and we have to understand that people have been out of their houses they can't get insurance businesses have closed down they can't operate and thankfully the Scottish Government have put forward some monies so where I am really really concerned is this absolute attitude where it's next rebuilt in fact it's non-negotiable that this will be built this new building but it does get built it seems to be that it will be built it's non-negotiable it's going to cost nearly £100 million and it's going to take 10 years what of the local community who are suffering just now is there going to be consultation with them do they want it to be back there or do they want it somewhere else so I would just like your thoughts on the local community as far as I know it's insulted but it seems that it's in tablets of stone if you pardon the pun that basically this will be built and it will be built there I want to know if there's other thoughts in regards to how the community feel about it we have been in close contact with the community recently and we're a very useful meeting at the council in fact meeting the residents and the businesses I think you're aware that we apologise for not having got out quickly enough to speak to them but I think they've accepted the reasons for that we're not going to move forward a single inch without consulting them you're absolutely right, I really want people to understand what Mrs White is saying it's not just their buildings it's their health businesses have lost everything I really can't tell you the kind of suffering that some of the residents have explained and we are massively sympathetic to that I'm an ex-Garnett Hill resident myself, many of our staff and our students are Garnett Hill residents we're friends they've always been part of our community we're horrified by what's happening to them and it's a major part of our strategy to involve them so there would be no point going on if they weren't part of this plan we have got all kinds of ideas for lasons for committees of inviting them in of using their skills of asking their opinion sorry to interrupt, I hope you don't mind but basically when you're saying that the point I'm trying to make is perhaps a local community, a number of them anyway one don't want it rebuilt in the way it is so I think they need to be asked what Annabelle Ewing said as well and it's came from Tom Innes and Professor Tony Jones as well to say that basically a building trust should be there that should oversee and the board should not be in charge of the whole we're aware that it's being brought forward we're aware of those what's your thoughts on that? we're aware of those two opinions which are minority opinions but we will certainly take those views on board as we say in our infancy in deciding how we move forward and we will look at every option our view currently is one that we're the best people placed to do it we're the experts we're the ones that can laze with the local community but don't think for a minute that I haven't taken on board everything you've said we're completely with you on that and yes just yes the community is behind us here in other words and say to them you will be consulted there'll be plenty consultation whether this actually does get people and this is the point I'm trying to say ten years they're going to have to suffer no I'm not going to lie to you we will consult them about how this is done but our remit is to rebuild it there has to be a negotiation I'm afraid that sorry it's public money that's being used but our public remit it could be delivered elsewhere well we'll discuss it but they'll be consulted well I'm sorry I don't think I can accept the fact that a trust which is paid through public money is dictating to a whole community or anyone else so would you say for instance the Glasgow University campus development would have to be given permission of the local residency I think they've consulted fairly highly with the local residency well that's what we'll be doing too I'm sorry I think we need to move on I'll continue this I'll continue the conversation just in so far as we are engaged you can't do enough community consultation I totally accept your point but in the first project we were working with the local community in terms of the bread oven in Garnatale Park which is entirely our project sorry to interrupt I know this stuff that is on the community the point I cannot accept is that the trust which is paid by public money is dictating the fact that we are going to spend 100 million pounds excuse me the board is not remunerated can I just say the board is not remunerated I think we shall move on but I will speak to you about that I would like to move on now I would just like to ask a supplementary to that myself actually you mentioned my minority opinion Professor Inns obviously is a former director they've both expressed the view that the art school board shouldn't be in charge of any rebuild so that's two former directors it might be a minority opinion but it's certainly a very significant one and I think that the point that has been made by Professor Inns is that this capital expenditure project of 100 million pounds is far in excess of your turnover 37 million a year so 100 million pounds is far in excess and in his view it will be detrimental to your work of an art school to have to take that on again would you care to briefly comment on that? Yes I completely respect Professor Inns personal opinion which is to express a disagree we do know that when we appoint a new director it will be a exceptional person who will be able to manage both projects, oversee them by the proper delegation of being able to bring in the experts who are absolutely placed to be able to oversee such an important as we did with the 2014 FARC very successfully and it is a big ask and that's what we're looking for but we have no doubt whatsoever that we have the capability of doing that at all If I might add just a comment it's absolutely the role of every higher education institution to take care if there are state matters places where I've worked before we all have to do that now it's not just about doing the education we have to maintain the infrastructure of course as best as we can and this is our response to that but over and above all of that just like from 2014 to now the restoration is a research project we have PhD students studying that research they are doing work on it we have creative practice based on it it's not a project that can be hived away somewhere else as if it's nothing to do with us and our educational function it will be absolutely embedded in our future we will learn from that we will bring the craft teaching into our teaching programmes etc that has to be an integrated programme and it's for that reason that it becomes very interesting for us, Glasgow and internationally to be doing this project at all thank you how can the 2014 team have been successful when the building burned down I'll explain that again those were two separate incidents the building would not have been a construction site if it hadn't been for the first fire so therefore they're not separate they are entirely separate as you know the S4S report on the 2014 fire is very explicit what happened we don't need to go over it again in that case we know what the accident was in 2014 and none of us know what happened in June fire but it was on a construction site and it was entirely different the efficacy of the management and the board in the intervening four years has been exemplary thank you good morning I'm glad that you did acknowledge an answer to Sandra White the devastation to the residents and the businesses and my own view is that it will be a long time before it will recover so the decisions that you take I hope you appreciate will impact on Glasgow's future I have to say that I think you are deluding yourselves if you think that you have a good relationship with this community and people are shaking their heads in disagreement if I could just say to people in the gallery please don't please don't say anything that could disrupt the meeting and it's one of the things that the fire has exposed is that we have this wonderful institution in Garnahill as you say but it has exposed your feelings over the last number of years to involve this community so it's not maybe the business of this committee as to what the future of the arts school is but it is the business of local politicians if you're going to spread the estate to Suckey Hall Street now the fact that I'm going to have to ask you these questions I'd hope you would take as an indication that you're still not properly informing the community of your plans and I would plead with you on this if you want to rebuild your relationship with this community you really start to tell them immediately what your plans are I do have some questions about the fire investigation but maybe you could just tell the committee first of all which buildings then do you intend to spread out to Suckey Hall Street to create this frontage I have no idea yet and I absolutely agree with you 100% we can't take that estate strategy forward at all without as you say repairing any damage that some of the residents or some of the businesses might feel has been done 100% in agreement with you and that estate strategy will be done completely completely in partnership with if it happens at all when we're still discussing it with Glasgow City Council with all the residents, with all the businesses and all involved parties you're right you cannot move forward without communication and community and business involvement so yes so if you ask for a retrospect to planning permission for one of the buildings in Suckey Hall Street that's what we believe I'm not sure I'd have to check that out break and reach sorry that was about student decant that wasn't about future estate strategy that's temporary should I ask you about the fire investigation it was a shock to a lot of people that it's only just started now I'm sure you understand that the businesses and the residents are anxious to find out the cause of the fire because they will have questions and there'll be liabilities issues and we don't know who was responsible he said earlier that it was accidental so I wondered how sorry the fire you were talking about 2014 2016 fire we don't know much about but do you think that the fire investigation is now compromised by your decision to protect and rebuild the Glasgow School of Art the McIntosh building so to leave people like me when I heard this I thought how can we get to the bottom of what caused the fire if the fire investigation team have only just been granted access now I have written to the fire service I haven't had to reply yet but I just wondered what you were able to say about why such a long delay and are you not concerned that this delay means that we might not get to the bottom of what caused the fire in 2018 massively agree with you the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service have been hampered obviously by just straightforward building control regulations it's about safety I hope that we have spoken to residents and businesses at some length to try and explain to them that we were focused on trying to get the cordon lifted and shortened to get them back into their homes while we were not communicating with them and you're right we didn't do that that was a failure of communication because we were working hard on the actual process of trying to get them back into the houses yes it's the most frustrating thing I can think of I met with a few residents just last week who were asking me exactly the same thing and I don't know we are desperate to find out the cause of this fire we can't interfere with the SFRS investigation and understand Police Scotland as well still have I think about 70 interviews to do because they can't do that part until the SFRS have got them it's a huge investigation but there's nothing we can do to speed that up and we haven't hampered it Just for clarification that investigation has been on-going as I know from day one because Police Scotland have been doing the interviews checking CCTV footage everything they could do outside the site they and I think SFRS have been would only take access once it was safe to do so it was their choice we don't grant permission obviously building control have a role in this at the city but I think it was their own health and safety and they have to put that ahead of everything else not the school, not anyone else Just for clarification I'm not suggesting that but you did take a decision to downtake it and preserve it and rebuild it and I was taking from that that's not initially what we were told but it was obviously going to delay If you demolished the building for example you would have gotten right away and made it safe That was an option given the nature of the gradual to do You're trying to preserve it with SFRS If we had demolished and cleared the site there would be no evidence I think descending a bulldozer however long that would have taken and our advice from our engineers and from the contractors because it's sat on such a steep site over two other commercial properties and Sutley Hall Street hence the cordon being as large as it was would it be in an uncontrolled demolition we don't know how long that would have taken but it would certainly have destroyed any evidence as it is they've been able to actually piece their way into that building and pick out so the forensic teams have been in and it's been absolutely in accordance to they do call the shots the Police Scotland and SFRS on that I just want to clear up a couple of other issues that were raised in our previous evidence sessions one is the fact that your contractor and you have addressed this in your rebuttal your contractor Kier was criticised by Professor John Cole for its work on the Dumfries and Galloway Leisure Centre DG1 and in particular Professor Cole criticised the fire-stopping measures on that building you've addressed that in your rebuttal and you've said at the time of appointment Glasgow School of Art followed a rigorous procurement process and the issues relating from the DG1 were not known but these were reported by the BBC on the 25th of February 2015 it was known that the building had closed and the local authority was seeking compensation Gordon Gibb who works in your own department of architecture has criticised you for this and said that any due diligence would have uncovered this dispute that was widely known in the constructing community before you appointed Kier thank you very much Gordon Gibb is entirely wrong on that and many other aspects but I'll pass it over to Liz what you knew about that insofar as I was handling the procurement at that time and the writing of the brief for advert to the building community for this project and as you know Kier won through if there had been any serious negligence and something as critical as that it would have come up in the pre-qualification and they would have simply not been able to even proceed through the tender process as it was, correct I don't know what date at 2.15 much as we all believe everything in the press the actual report didn't come out I think till 2.17 and that was John Cole's evidence that also looked at the Edinburgh schools so when the evidence came out in 2.17 we did speak to Kier about that at the time they were very clear that it was a different division of their company that may just be names, I don't know but it was a different division of the country but far more critically for us which meant critically that you actually have full supervision and your oversight of the project as it goes along in a design and build the contractor takes the risk but also the profit if it comes through of delivering that project within a budget, within a programme but quality is not going to be uppermost so it's actually a very fine way of proceeding if you're building a gym hall and it's a new build on a new site but not for a project like the Macintosh we went through a standard building contract here I'm going to look at my notes at all but this is the one place I will to look at the John Cole report and what he did say and it's just two sentences is that the presence of so many defects in evidence of the fundamental were down to the fundamental failures of quality control used by the main contractor in this case and the design and build supply chain delivering the design construction supervision and inspection of the building the lack of independent professional scrutiny of an onsite constructor on construction professionals on behalf of the client all of those professionals in place because it was a standard contract where we certified and looked at those works before they got paid it was a daily process of watching what Kea did we're not watching but collaborating it was a collaborative project and they were running a very fine project so were any of the professionals in your team that were supervising them expert in fire prevention? we had I tell you 10 who were fire engineers they were the fire engineering part of the team okay thanks very much to go back to my original point since your federal report in 2006-2008 the building was left it wasn't fire stopped and we didn't have a suppression system in and all that time it was being used for the education of young people apart from after the 2014 fire of course you've said on a number of occasions that you're confident the building was safe you stand by that it's just because I've got the federal report in front of me here and the assessment is and there's six different issues likelihood of a fire occurring in the building medium to high risk potential for fire to remain undetected medium to high risk potential for fire to grow spread beyond item first ignited high risk potential for fire to grow beyond room of origin high risk hazard posed by fire high risk consequences in the event of the fire spreading high that was in 2006 and the two things that would have addressed that which would be fire stopping fire suppression didn't happen how can you sit here and assist the building was safe well again we're talking about 2006 I think we answered that earlier that we'd but you didn't take any you didn't put any measures in place in response to that report which you commissioned you didn't put any you didn't put fire suppression measures you tried to and we talked through that and you explained why you didn't put fire stopping in place but those two significant preventative measures were not taken so despite the fact that what I've just read out in terms of the risk and you're still insisting the building was safe yes it was deemed to be safe it passed every regularity test and we've explained earlier about putting in the enhancement of the fire suppression system I think we dealt with that earlier but it wasn't there was no fire suppression system in at the time of either fire no but I'll explain to you again about the fire suppression system well you don't need to explain you explained that before I'm just making the point that you're saying that the building was safe and I've just read out your own report which says on six different areas high risk okay all I want to say is if it hadn't been a safe building we would not have been allowed by the laws of this land to have put 500 students in it and thousands of people to run through it so like any other historic building it had issues that we as good custodians were asking the questions about and are probably one of the only institutions that were going to the extent of doing this and then putting in all the measures CCTV, a low pressure mist system ves the smoke detection but you didn't put the low pressure mist system in it wasn't in we were putting it I think you know the parliament decided to build another crossing of Scotland of the fourth bridge what in 2007 but if I'd have rolled up then in 2008 I'd have got wet it has to be built it has to be designed, it has to be fundraised it has to be passed all the list of building consent it was an extraordinary bespoke system it wasn't a kit of parts it was something that and the main part of that in the timeline was to actually raise the funds for it for putting in a half million pound or in the case of the system we were putting in over a million pounds of mist suppression into that building it was your choice to pursue mist suppression and as others have raised with you you were also spending millions of pounds extending your campus at that time and again I think that's something that people find difficult to understand that this building was left in this state at a time when you spent 50 million pounds on extending your campus and then even after the 2014 fire embarked on another campus extension by purchasing the store building and that despite all this money being spent on extending the campus and the purpose of that is to increase the number of students of course and increase your income that this building was left unprotected I need to stop there actually because it's not to increase our income because as you know our income is pretty much set by the Scottish Government the places that we have and the international students that we can attract that's any extra income we purchased store because of the decant of the fine art students to the tontine building it was one of the best pieces of happenstance ever that's the most beautiful building and it will come into the Glasgow school of art estate as an absolute jewel in the crown I think that if anyone expressed surprise that we were upgrading enhancing and improving our estate for our core remit which is the creative education of students in Scotland that would make me raise my eyebrows why would that be a bad thing we were doing that in conjunction with preserving, enhancing, improving and making safe the Macintosh building I see no dichotomy there at all sorry could I just add a point when you mentioned extending the estate I think you're possibly referring to the reed building but the reed building I was head of design at the school of design at that point and we occupied the newbury tower in the Fawless building which were deemed unfit for purpose and had to be replaced it wasn't an extension to our campus it was actually on the same site as the previous buildings they were replaced but as I've just read out your own report where the Macintosh was high risk in a whole number of areas in terms of fire and all this other activity was going on but that has not been addressed it might have been intention to address it but you're talking about a 20-year period in which it wasn't addressed clearly it was addressed because that became a major part of the agenda when the refurbishment was happening prior to the 2014 fire we would discuss that at great length about applying for and raising the funds to do just that but as professor McCarrer McWilliam was pointed out that was not an expansion we were merely taking down buildings that were fit for purpose and replacing them funded by the Scottish Funding Council brilliantly with an absolute state-of-the-art wonderful building for the future education of Scottish and international students Do you have any regrets at all in terms of decisions you've made would you have done anything differently and do you take any responsibility? We take full responsibility at all times for what happens at the GSA 100% Yes, I have massive regrets that we've suffered two major disasters in fact I'd say more than regretful it's broken my heart we have as I said audited ourselves in a precisely the same way as this committee rightfully has there's no question really that you've asked that we haven't asked ourselves 100 times we keep asking ourselves could we have done this better is there something we missed is there a lesson that we've learned from SAC that we can take forward so we are very self-critical and we'll continue to do so I don't have any regrets about the process I have massive regrets that these things happened but no I can't in all conscious say there's something that I would have done differently I don't know how you feel I feel exactly the same and the intention is to fully couple as was the original intent the building with the educational system of the Glasgow School of Art just remains what we've always been doing for 100 years and for the next 100 years so that's really our core purpose and intent I do regret that is a point I do regret actually not having engaged more fully and sooner with the local community and I really do it wasn't intentional but the perception that they had is valid because even if we didn't intend it if that's how they felt, that's valid so yes, that is the one thing I do regret it was pro-communications but nothing before the fire, no decisions made before no, I'm not because again we have really gone over this over and over and over again and we'll continue to do so so we are very self-examining okay, thank you very much for coming to give the evidence today no, thank you for the invitation the meeting in going to private session, thank you