Examination of Witnesses (Questions 220-226)
MR TY
GODDARD AND
MR RICHARD
SIMMONS
3 JULY 2006
Q220 Chairman: Can Richard tell me
whether the industry has the capacity?
Mr Simmons: The most recent studies
suggest it probably has, yes. There have been some studies recently
which the Construction Industry Council has undertaken, which
suggest they can actually manage the BSF construction.
Q221 Mr Marsden: Was that before
or after we had won the Olympics?
Mr Simmons: The Olympics are actually
a fairly minor blip on a much larger construction programme. What
is going on in the private sector in terms of construction—
Q222 Chairman: The Olympics will
be a construction blip?
Mr Simmons: Yes. At no point,
as far as I know, do the Olympics employ the number of people
on site that Terminal 5 at Heathrow is employing.
Q223 Chairman: That is the biggest
construction site in Europe, is it not?
Mr Simmons: Yes. We can provide
you with some data on this, if you like, which is supplied by
others. "Blip" is the wrong word, because it is obviously
a very important project and it has to be built on time and budget
and so on. However, it is actually fairly small compared with
the massive programme that we see in hospitals and schools and
the private sector in particular at the moment. All the research
suggests that the industry has the capacity to deliver it. In
a sense the area of greatest concern is probably around the most
skilled parts of the business, things like architects, landscape
designers and so on, where there are probably going to be scarcities.
It may well be that the area we have been talking about, good
designers, is where the biggest risks lie.
Q224 Chairman: This is so interesting
that we are going past our usual time but we have to draw to a
close. Ty, a quick response and then David is going to finish
off.
Mr Goddard: In terms of what we
have seen around the country, there has been no lack of people
coming forward who want to build new schools.
Q225 Chairman: Yes, but that could
include the man who used to be in Fawlty Towers whom Basil
Fawlty used to employ. Do you remember him?
Mr Goddard: I remember him and
I remember watching him when I was a young person and thinking
that I never wanted to stay in that hotel. I have probably stayed
in lots of them since then; so have you. Richard has probably
slapped a CABE enforcement notice on one. What I have learned—and
you know this already and I am sorry to reiterate it—is
that schools move at different paces and so do local authorities.
What we have is the beginnings of the sharings of good practice
around what sustainability means. I have to echo what Richard
said earlier, that we have to make sure that what we give schools
is not bolted on but is owned. For us, the best way of owning
innovation is not by being given a Powerpoint by your assistant
director, or your director of children's services with the next
new revolution on the horizon that you have to follow as a stressed
head teacher, as a stressed teacher, but to be involved in that
process. It is a process of negotiation and what worries me—and
I think this is where you wanted us to get to, cut the flim-flam,
get to the lessons—is that there has to be a minimum standard
of engagement of our workforce and of our future citizens, both
in sustainability and in all of the other issues around schools.
The big question—and it is a massive question—is whether
BREEAM helps sustainability. Do the area guidelines help sustainability?
Do building bulletins as they are currently written here and now
actually help sustainability? If you hear the voices out there,
there are differing views on whether there are indeed conflicts
within building bulletins. Some of the building bulletins, if
you listen to the real technical expertise out there, which we
need in our schools, actually contradict your journey, my journey
towards sustainability. That has to worry us all. What I shall
say is let us have a good sharp look, a good quick review, if
such is possible, of the building bulletins and indeed the area
guidelines, but also, another voice we hear from local authorities
or children's services departments, is time and time again national
government put new agendas on them: Every Child Matters,
Extended Schools, Children's Trusts, Sustainability could be one
of those pressures they perceive. However, often there is a funding
gap. Does the funding from central government actually take into
account what could be short-term more expensive investment which
actually may cut energy consumption by 30 to 50% over a whole
life cycle of a building? I fear that short-term investment we
so desperately need is not actually covered by the investment
framework at this particular moment.
Q226 Mr Chaytor: There are certain
things such as the thermal insulation value of concrete or the
capacity to use natural daylight, which are well known and well
understood and presumably cheaper than sticking on a photovoltaic
roof. Why are these not used as a matter of course? That is my
first question and my final question is: if the picture you have
created for us in the industry is no shortage of builders but
a looming shortage of designers and architects, is that a recipe
for disaster? Is it not a case for using standardised models more
frequently than having bespoke schools in every neighbourhood
of the country?
Mr Simmons: Coming to the standardisation
point first, standards and standardisation are not quite the same
thing. Setting standards and providing standardised products have
their place, but certainly CABE will always say that you should
also try to have a school which is right for your locality and
every site is different as well. You may be talking about a community
school or one which has just been used for school purposes. Standards
and standardisation have their place and certainly if you can
get to a point where you standardise standards for a reasonable
amount of things, that frees your designer time to look at things
like innovation and sustainability. As to why it is not happening:
firstly it is about specifications and what is in the building
bulletins. Secondly, it is about how projects are appraised and
assessed. The Treasury and the Office of Government Commerce have
published the common minimum standard and they require whole-life
costing to be taken into account. That is an obligation. It is
mandatory on all central government funding now, but it is not
very widely known at the moment that that is the case. There is
very clear guidance that whole-life costing should be used. The
BRE have actually produced some guidance on how to do whole-life
costing for schools but, as we argue in our report, that really
needs to be looked at very hard and there needs to be a very sound
assessment of the whole-life cost which allows you to look at
the issues you were just talking about. In a sense we should like
to start by following the Government's guidelines. It is great
that the Government have actually taken that initiative. I have
been in meetings with people from the Treasury and from government
departments where the Treasury have said they insist on whole-life
costing and that is how they want to see it done. Whether the
budgets which are available then measure up to the whole-life
costs is another matter entirely and that is something you have
to ask DfES and the Treasury I guess.
Chairman: This has been a long session
but an excellent session. We have really started to get some reasonable
information. You have both been very useful in that and thank
you very much for your time. As you go away, whether you go on
public transport or however you get home—I am sure you are
going to be cycling knowing the commitment to sustainability of
both of you—could you think about what we did not ask you,
what you should have told us and remain in communication with
us, because we are going to need your help to make this an excellent
inquiry? Some of the things you have told me today make me think
we had better finish this and get it out as quickly as possible.
Thank you.
| 
