Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
TY GODDARD,
RICHARD SIMMONS,
STEVEN MAIR
AND DAVID
RUSSELL
14 JULY 2008
Q20 Annette Brooke: No, I was not
meaning using the office buildings. I meant that workers can work
from home and therefore share desks, and maybe pupils will not
go into a physical building every day in years to come.
Richard Simmons: I think that
the long-term vision for schools is that they will become a hub
for a wider group of people in the community. Young people will
be staying on later, until they are 18, so pathways to work, for
example, will become much more important to schools. It seems
to me that the school could in some ways become a much more important
focal point. I am not sure whether everybody will be at school
for the same hours as now, but some of the support that needs
to be delivered to young people—Barnsley have referred to
this—is well delivered through something that is local to
people's neighbourhood and perhaps more open to the community
than many schools have been. The Jo Richardson school, for example,
which we talked about earlier, has its sports facilities and library
shared with the community. I think that in future we will see
work spaces being shared so that businesses can be connected much
more to their future work force in schools and so on. I think
that they are going to become more important in future, but probably
quite different from how they are designed now.
Q21 Annette Brooke: Right; going
back to Steven, how much vision have you done on how teaching
and learning will change with the shape of the building, or vice
versa?
Steven Mair: We are working very
heavily with our colleagues in schools on that. We have what we
call "learning stars", who at the moment are 50 of our
best and most innovative teachers. They are working with colleagues
in the BSF team, being made aware of the extra resources that
will be made available to them. They are testing different curriculum
designs. We have a whole authority day in October, when they will
come together with the pupils and the teachers, reflecting on
what has worked. The key thing is not to get to the opening of
the new buildings and suddenly start thinking "We'd better
start innovating on teaching and learning." We want to be
in there on day one, and really making these work as best we can.
This is not a buildings programme in isolation. It is not a teaching
and learning programme in isolation. We have our BSF team; we
have our advisory team; and we work very closely together on that,
so that we get the best out of both.
Q22 Annette Brooke: Ty, that is very
visionary, but is it going to work like that?
Ty Goddard: I respect not only
Barnsley's optimism but Barnsley's sense of asking the really
difficult questions, which are: what sort of education do we want
and what kind of spaces will support that? That transformation,
I think, is going to be difficult. It is going to need a higher
level of support. It is going to need a process that actually
meaningfully involves teachers and young people in sharing and
telling us, as adults, what kind of spaces they learn best in.
Also, it should allow the meaningful involvement of teachers.
Too often teachers are the ones who are not consulted. Teachers
are the ones who are not supported. I do not think that the transformation
that you are seeing in Barnsley will necessarily be shared all
over the country. We have to be optimistic. We must celebrate
this investment. We have had a culture for many decades of being
experts at patch and mend and make do in our schools. With that
leap from deciding where the bucket goes under the leaky roof
to beginning to think through what the future holds, as David
said, the impetus of technology is going to be absolutely enormous.
Q23 Annette Brooke: A very quick
question: to what extent have Government been leading the process
of the interrelationship; or to what extent have they been following?
Ty Goddard: Leadership is absolutely
crucial. We have a Chief Executive at Partnerships for Schools
now who has experience of local government and procurement. He
has said publicly time and again that he wants to go further in
terms of loosening up the procurement process, making it much
less expensive for bidders, and much less onerous for local authorities
to actually begin to build these schools. I think we need leadership
from Government. One of the main points of your last report was
that we need to begin to define what we actually mean by transformation
within education. The nature of leadership in other countries
is different around teaching and learning. Here we seem to have
in many ways become quite hands-off, and I think, often, the bidding
process is used for something that it should not be, which is
to explore different visions. A bidding process is not the best
place. Finally, we are not learning as a nation. Where is the
post-occupancy evaluation? We are building lots and lots of schools,
but nowhere do we listen to the users and what they think about
these buildings. Nowhere do we collect proper energy data. How
can you have sustainable schools when you do not know what energy
is being used in your present schools? So I am talking about meaningful
stakeholder engagement; a procurement process that really focuses
on teaching and learning and the involvement of learners and teachers;
and actually beginning to capture some of the lessons that we
know are out there. It goes beyond design review panels, if I
may say so respectfully to CABE; it goes to the heart of how you
learn as a country and how you feed that information back.
Q24 Chairman: You said nice things
about Tim Byles and the process at the beginning, and you end
up saying they are not doing their job.
Ty Goddard: I said all sorts of
things about Tim Byles. I have said that I think we finally have
a leader of Partnerships for Schools who knows the terrain.
Q25 Chairman: Let us go to the end
bit, though, about post-evaluation—
Ty Goddard: Post-occupancy evaluation?
Chairman: Yes.
Ty Goddard: That is what I think
would be useful.
Q26 Chairman: Well, you have been
saying that Tim Byles has been ignoring it.
Ty Goddard: I do not think he
has been completely ignoring us.
Chairman: All right.
Ty Goddard: With your help, we
can make this a system of investment that has improvements at
its heart.
Richard Simmons: I wanted to say
that no bit of Government at the moment is following the Office
of Government Commerce and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury's
instruction that they should do post-occupancy evaluation. In
fact, PfS has started doing that on projects now, so we will start
to see it coming through the system. It is very important.
Chairman: We leaned heavily, apparently,
on the Office of Government Commerce to get the last contract
that we discussed in this Committee a short time ago.
Q27 Mr Stuart: Is environmental sustainability
lost among the myriad demands in the BSF programme?
Richard Simmons: It is one of
the areas that we see as an area for improvement. We see several
things that are getting much better very quickly, including things
such as circulation in schools and how food gets served at lunchtimes.
At the moment, we are not seeing enough projects driven by a proper
sustainability strategy. Quite often, we are seeing that the technical
side of sustainability is not strong enough. Simple things, such
as which way the building faces on the site to take best advantage
of the sun, natural light and so on, are not necessarily driving
projects at the moment, so we would like to see greater improvement
on that. To be fair to the people designing schools, that is,
again, not unique to schools. It is an issue that we come across
in design review all the time. Outside schools design review,
we have seen about 700 projects in our full design review panel
over the last two years and we reckon only about seven of those
had a proper sustainability strategy that we would respect. It
is an important issue. We have not gone far enough yet. This Committee's
work in reviewing the issue has been quite helpful in driving
the agenda forward, but we would like to see a lot more improvements
in that area.
Q28 Mr Stuart: But we have a Government
who would like to be a global leader on climate change, and we
have multi-billion pound expenditure—a quite extraordinary
investment—and you are telling us that it does not deliver
the most fundamental, basic environmental approaches. If schools
are being built and they do not even work out, from an environmental
point of view, which way they are facing, where the light comes
in and what their energy use is likely to be, there is something
pretty fundamentally wrong, is there not?
Richard Simmons: We have a big
issue about skills in this area in the country at the moment,
and an industry that is not yet used to the kinds of building
that are being demanded of it by the kinds of brief that are coming
forward. Again, those from Barnsley might want to say more about
what they have been doing on that front.
Q29 Chairman: Do you mean there are
architects who do not know which way a building should face?
Richard Simmons: We have architects
who certainly do not know how to design low-energy and high natural
light buildings. They have been used to designing buildings with
a lot of air conditioning, lots of artificial lighting and very
high intensity energy usage. As I think I said to the Committee
last time, we are also seeing quite a few buildings coming through
where the energy strategy does not take account of the amount
of IT that is being put into the building, for example. We are
seeing an industry that needs to learn faster. At the moment,
we are not satisfied that we are getting the best we could, but
the industry, in every sector, is still struggling with this agenda.
Steven Mair: Sustainability is
very much a key item in what we are doing. We have a number of
initiatives, and Dave can add to this. For example, all our schools
will be 100% biomass heated, which is a carbon neutral source.
We will have BREEAM—Building Research Establishment Environmental
Assessment Method—ratings of excellent. We are looking at
cooling as well as heating to try to take account of the forthcoming
issues that we all know about. We are looking at the potential
for wind turbines, which is still subject to negotiation with
our bidders, but a lot of this comes down to leadership by the
authority, because this is not particularly driven by our bidders.
David Russell: The essence of
the problem is that PFI in itself does not really allow for sustainability,
because a bidder will put in a bid that gives him good marks and
fulfils the criteria of the output spec, but energy is basically
down to the client. The client pays for energy, so there is no
impetus for the PFI bidder to put things in, because they do not
improve his bid. In Barnsley, we recognise that. We have been
through a 13-primary PFI scheme, and a lot of fine words were
said about sustainability, but nothing really came out of it.
We put in half a million pounds per scheme for our nine advanced
learning centres, basically for enhanced sustainability issues,
and that is paying for the list of items that Steve mentioned.
We are also considering enhanced passive cooling, which has been
mentioned. We are looking at putting into the building some infrastructure
to allow for future climate change. We are considering enhanced
under-floor heating-sized coils in the floor, and absorption chilling,
which is a way of chilling a building using a boiler. I know that
seems a contradiction, but it is based on biomass heating. Those
are all things that we have actively promoted in our scheme and
not things that you would necessarily get within a PFI-procured
system. That is what we are doing.
Q30 Mr Stuart: Where is the biomass
taking place? Where is the power being burned?
David Russell: Localised boilers
from each of the adult learning centres. The biomass itself will
be harvested locally. Barnsley has some pedigree in biomass boilers.
Its recent council offices are biomass-powered, as are a couple
of major new developments.
Q31 Mr Stuart: But that bears out
Ty's earlier remark about the fact that authorities such as yours
take the issue seriously. They are not box ticking. They are doing
so despite the procurement process, rather than because of it.
Steven Mair: We are doing it on
top of, as well as leading the procurement process. As I mentioned
to colleagues earlier, it is important that we have leadership
in Government, but it is very important that we have leadership
and skills in the authorities because we are the people who will
be running the institutions for the next 25 or 50 years.
Q32 Mr Stuart: Does anyone want to
comment on the Department for Children, Schools and Families'
environmental sustainability taskforce and its effectiveness?
Ty Goddard: It is early days for
that taskforce. There has been lots of discussion. The Government
have produced case studies—not always successful with regard
to energy usage. We have sharp rhetoric, yet at school level we
still have confusion about sustainability and how to prioritise
it and prioritise solutions within the process. There is a sense
that there are technical answers all the time. For example, putting
a windmill on the roof of a school equals sustainability. That
was put to me in the phrase eco-bling. Eco-bling does not necessarily
equal sustainability.
Chairman: We were not dazzled by that.
Ty Goddard: I am your straight
man.
Mr Stuart: Aren't we all?
Ty Goddard: Some of us may be,
and some may not.
Chairman: It must be the end of term.
Ty Goddard: That taskforce is
hopefully going to be useful. It is owned by the profession. I
do not think that Richard is entirely correct when he says that
we do not have the skills as a country or a profession. The profession
is thinking far ahead. Arup gave evidence in the last report.
It is a global leader in such issues and seriously pointed the
way to how we begin to think about sustainability in our schools.
Q33 Mr Stuart: I am trying to capture
this. What you are telling us is that Barnsley is a lead authority.
It has taken an interest in this and has been ahead of the game.
Authorities that have all the opposite qualities rarely turn up
to give evidence to us. There tends to be more of them than there
are of this kind. The picture that you seem to be painting is
of a pretty disastrous failure to deliver environmental sustainability
on a consistent basis across this incredibly large investment.
Is that fair?
Richard Simmons: I think that
there is a way to go.
Q34 Mr Stuart: How disastrous is
it? It sounds pretty calamitous.
Richard Simmons: I have to declare
an interest in the taskforce because one of our commissioners,
Robin Nicholson, chairs it. The point about skills is that there
are organisations, such as Arup, that have the skills. The question
is whether there are enough of them in the right places at the
right time. The evidence of what we are seeing at the moment at
CABE is that there are not yet enough people in the right place
at the right time or enough clients who are making the right demands.
It is a fixable problem because schools in Norway or Germany are
already achieving very high standards. It is about making sure
that the standards are out there and that those who will be the
clients understand them. It is also about making sure, as colleagues
from Barnsley have said, that the bidders know that it is on the
agenda and that somebody who is capable will be checking it to
make sure that it is being delivered.
Q35 Mr Stuart: My constituency was
particularly badly affected by the floods last year. What reassurance
can you give us that schools will be built with flooding in mind,
and be sensibly placed and protected?
Richard Simmons: It is important
to recognise that sustainability is not just about zero carbon.
It is about a whole range of things, including how to deal with
storm weather events in the future. From what we have seen, it
is difficult to say that that is a serious consideration. Not
many schools have been put before us that are in areas of high
flood risk, but that is certainly on the list of issues that we
shall be wanting to pick up.
Ty Goddard: It would be unfair
to use the words "disastrous failure". It is a long
journey. It is incumbent on us that we fully and properly respond
to the challenge but, once again, latitude within a procurement
process may make some of those issues easier to grapple with and
understand. I do not know whether colleagues from Barnsley want
to comment, but there is often confusion in whole-life costings
for new technologies.
Q36 Mr Stuart: Typically, water-heating
pumps are vast users of electricity. Europe's largest pump manufacturer
told me last week that that always gets squeezed out in the PFI.
As a result, it ends up selling a pump that is not energy-efficient.
That is just a disaster. It is not cost-effective for the operator
of the school or for any other facility. Will Barnsley tell us
that it will put in high-efficiency pumps each time?
Steven Mair: We go back to the
biomass, which we are putting into every advanced learning centre
and special school, which are carbon-neutral for the whole of
heat.
Richard Simmons: To me, it is
critical that the partnership is responsible in the longer term
for everything to do with the school. If, as you say, the client
ends up with the energy bill, there is no incentive in the system
to make sure that you build in such technology. If you invest
up front, you will save money in the long run so it is a good
idea to share the savings and the benefits.
Q37 Paul Holmes: When we were taking
evidence and visiting schools for the first inquiry, there seemed
to be a general trend that either sustainable measures were squeezed
out because the up front costs could not be afforded or because
individual schools had just not thought about it. Why is the Barnsley
experience different? You talked about pump-priming. Does that
mean you are putting in money other than BSF money? Is it also
better in Barnsley because you are planning it as an authority,
rather than as, say, 20 individual schools doing the wrong thing?
Steven Mair: Barnsley council
and its schools are putting in a considerable amount, over and
above what the Government have given. In effect, our scheme is
60% funded by the Government and 40% funded by Barnsley and its
schools. It is its number one priority, and there is a major investment
going on. As for sustainability, we have targeted it. We are well
aware of it, along with many other issues, and we have put specific
funding to one side to make sure that we achieve it because we
can see the benefits going forward.
Q38 Paul Holmes: Are schools getting
involved in the same sort of pattern? How much flexibility do
they have within your framework?
Steven Mair: We are not imposing
one standard of design or anything like that on schools. For cost-efficiency
purposes, about 80% of the build will be the same and 20% will
be personalised. All our schools are drawing up their own vision
and their own reference scheme, and working fully with the authority.
The worst thing in the world is to impose a model on schools,
because they are working in it, and they need to own it and inspire
it. They need to make it work, and that is what we are doing.
It might cost a little more, but the figures are not big compared
with motivating and raising attainment for pupils and teachers
in the next 25 to 50 years.
Q39 Chairman: This is a very interesting
session. I am sure that we could go on for much longer, but I
have a quick question to ask Richard or Ty before we finish. We
notice that big contractors have a large number of BSF PFIs. You
have talked about skills, capacity and innovation. The programme
has been going for some years now. Surely they have the skills?
Are not some of the big contractors—not only Arup, but others—leading
in innovation?
Richard Simmons: We are still
learning a lot about how to deliver sustainability, for example.
At the moment, I do not think that the whole industry is learning
as rapidly as the best bits of it. In another part of my life,
I am involved in Constructing Excellence, whose members tend to
be ahead of the rest of the industry on these sorts of issues.
It is a question of whether your business is focused on these
kinds of improvements, and some are more so than others.
Chairman: I am afraid that that is the
end of the session. I thank you very much, particularly the Barnsley
people. Jeff Ennis used to be on the previous Committee, and Barnsley
was the most mentioned place name. We have done him proud by hearing
that your experience is innovative and useful, so thank you. Thank
you, too, Ty Goddard and Richard Simmons. Will you remain in conversation
with us? A regular update on BSF will take place. A large amount
of taxpayers' money is involved, and we will keep coming back
to it. If you go away and think of things that you should have
said to the Committee or things that should have been asked, will
you get in contact with us.
| 
