Schools : eighth report from the Select Committee on Estimates together with the Minutes of Evidence taken before Sub-Committee E and Appendices, Session 1952-1953.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Estimates
Date:
1953
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Schools : eighth report from the Select Committee on Estimates together with the Minutes of Evidence taken before Sub-Committee E and Appendices, Session 1952-1953. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    51/256 (page 31)
    11 February, 1953.] [Continued. paragraph of your memorandum you mention that the building programme had reached a level of £70 million, was reduced to £30 million and was later restored to £56 million. You also mention that your machinery had been geared to that £70 mil- lion. The £70 million was apparently a figure which had been recommended by a committee. Could you tell us the name of that committee, and why that committee decided upon a level of £70 million?— (Dr. Alexander.) The committee was a com- mittee set up by the then Minister under the chairmanship of Sir William Cleary (who was at that time Deputy-Secretary at the Ministry) on the building pro- gramme, particularly on the steps which might be taken to speed up the procedures relating to the school building programme, the preparation of plans and procedures at the local authority end for the placing of contracts and so on. In this work it had occasion necessarily to examine the prob- able total building programme to carry out the provisions of the Act, and to make some attempt to gauge over what period of time it would be reasonable to try to do so. The then estimates, which were necessarily tentative in 1946, indicated that, if we could carry £70 million a year for fifteen years, we would make a real effort at carrying out the necessary programme, the basis of £70 million being that the policy should be carried over a period of fifteen years. It seemed to us that a longer period was too long and a shorter one was not practicable. 353. What year was that?—1946. We related the figure of £70 million also to the maximum building programme which had been carried out before the war, which was in fact £16 million in 1937-38. That was the heaviest building programme, and by a reasonable adjustment of values in terms of current prices at that time it seemed to us that with the appropriate gearing up of the local authority machine, the expansion of the architects’ departments and so on a programme of £70 million a year in terms of 1946 values could be carried; it was a practicable proposition ; and the recommendation was that if possible £70 million a year over a period of fifteen years should be given. That figure is in 1946 values, and therefore the figure of £70 million which was reached in 1949 is fundamentally a lower figure in terms of the number of school places and so on. However, that figure was reached in 1949, and the local education authorities had recruited the necessary architectural and other staff to carry that programme. To-day that would represent something between £90 million and £100 million in terms of current values. In fact the pro- gramme is £56 million so that it is little more than half. It is I think true to say that certainly in some authorities the machine has had to be geared down so as virtually not to waste the resources of man- poner which have been established for this work. 354. When you say you geared your machinery for this £70 million does that mean that, when you were asked to alter this, you were financially at a loss in some respects? What expenditure had you incurred which had become abortive as a result of this change?—-The expenditure would of course be in the recruitment of men—architects, clerks of works and similar people. Mr. Malcolm MacPherson. 355. To what extent were those people specialists in education? Did you recruit architects who were specialists in school building?—Almost wholly. The great problem has been to get architects to be specialists in school building because frankly a general architect coming into school building has a great deal to learn. 356. But you found in practice that there were plenty? You were able to recruit architects who specialised in school build- ing?—There were a great many architects who had previously been in general archi- tectural work, but in the nature of the then situation in which house building and archi- tectural work generally was not very plenti- ful they were quite glad to go into school work and into permanent employment with local education authorities. 357. These people presumably would now be able to turn to fields of architecture in which they also had knowledge?—Yes. 358. Are you suggesting that the archi- tects are without work just now?—No. am suggesting they may well do precisely that. In other words, authorities would virtually terminate contracts because they are not justified now. 359. Then what is the national loss?— There is no national loss. The loss will be that when you carry out the schoo! building programme they will not be there. You cannot restore, in other words, the school building programme to the necessary level to carry out policy by just waving a magic wand and saying “ Now, get all the people back to do this” because necessarily that will not be so easy. Brigadier Peto 360. I cannot understand why, if you were able to recruit them in the first place, you cannot again recruit them when they are needed?—-The reason surely is this. In the first instance there was no work for archi- tects. Now I gather there is a good deal more work for architects. Miss Ward. 361. It is no longer so attractive?—That may well be true.